|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 278 Records
-
1987 (4) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tool Blanks ... ... ... ... ..... Tools Manufacturers Ltd. as falling under TI 68 CET. We may note that, evidently with reference to certain earlier disputes, the issue of classifibility of carbide blanks manufactured by Indian Tools Manufacturers Ltd. came up for consideration before this Tribunal and that the Tribunal had held in its decision reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1170 that such blanks were classifiable under TI 68 CET. The Tribunal had held that blanks which are not ready for use till after further processing is done would fall under TI 68 CET and not under the heading under which they would fall after such processing is done. Similarly in the present case also the subject goods would fall under TI 68 CET since they can fall under TI 51-A(iii) only after the further processes are carried out thereon by the purchasers. 10. emsp Accordingly, we are satisfied that the order of the Appellate Collector requires no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the notice, dated 26-6-1982 is discharged.
-
1987 (4) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Mineral fibres ... ... ... ... ..... s and clutch facings) emerge, answering the specific description of Item 34A of the Tariff. Indeed, prior to the 4th stage, there are other stages also, like manufacture of asbestos yarn, in the appellants rsquo factory. Asbestos yarn is a specifically named product under Item 22-F(2). But we find in the proceedings before us that the department is not seeking to charge duty at the stage of asbestos yarn. It is seeking to charge duty only at the final stage of asbestos manufactures under Item 22-F(4) of the Tariff. The facts, therefore, belie the appellants rsquo contention. 8. emsp In sum, we find that the asbestos rings and asbestos fabrics in dispute before us are finished and identifiable asbestos products. They are high value articles and quite capable of being marketed to interested industrial users. They directly answer the tariff description in Item 22-F(4). They are, therefore, lsquo goods rsquo and are liable to duty. 9. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (4) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... otification No. 55/75-CE, dated 1-3-1975 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the aforesaid decisions, it was also held that benefit of exemption Notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules is not admissible to the imported goods unless the Notification specifically exempts imported goods from the levy of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We have no reason to differ from the above decisions. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in which he held that the goods would fall in the category of Drugs and were eligible for exemption from duty under Notification No. 55/75. 3. The impugned order is set aside and appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. 4. emsp While disposing of this appeal, we have carefully considered the contentions of the respondents in the ldquo Cross objection rdquo which is in the nature of comments on the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1987 (4) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... on of a Larger Bench on the question of excisability is followed, would also be appealable to the Supreme Court. The issue having been considered by a Larger Bench, and a view having been taken that view should, in my opinion, be followed by all Benches of the Tribunal, unless and until the law is changed or there is a specific decision to the contrary by the Supreme Court or a High Court. 32. emsp I therefore hold, on the point of difference appearing in para 2 above, that duty can in this case be levied on the circles, even though they have been made from duty-paid strips. 33. emsp For the reasons given in para 23 of this order, it is not necessary for me to deal with the other arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the appellants. 34. The case should now go back to the original Bench for final orders in accordance with the decision in para 32 above. Final Orders In view of the orders of the Hon rsquo ble President on the point of difference the Appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron and steel products ... ... ... ... ..... n only be at the expense of proper appreciation, and true and correct understanding. Above is part of a figure diagram taken from page 2 of the book we have quoted THE MAKING, SHAPING AND TREATING OF STEEL. This diagram traces the products to their origins and in doing so, places their manufacture in different kinds of mills. Note that plates are produced in plate mills, bars in bar mills, and strips/sheets coil in hot-strips mill while skelp are produced in skelp mills and so on. This is the pattern of modern steel production. 14. emsp These products are not the hoops i.e. baling hoops, which the Collector (Appeals) by his reference to IS 1956 - 62, showed he considered them to be. They were produced in a mill that cannot produce hoops or strips. Their lengths are not such as to place them in the same class as hoops too many reasons for saying they are not hoops, and hardly any for saying they are. Assessment under 26AA(ia) is more appropriate than assessment under 26AA(ii).
-
1987 (4) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Goods not exempt from Additional duty at the time of import ... ... ... ... ..... e of duty and non-leviability of duty would not. We do not think that we would be justified in adopting such an anomalous interpretation when there is available another interpretation which is not plausible but also confers on the assessee the benefit of consideration by a Special Bench and an appeal direct to the highest Court in the land. In view of the foregoing discussion, no doubt remains that the impugned order is one covered by the exclusion clause of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, there is no provision for a reference to High Court in the instant case. The other two questions which are common to all the 3 reference applications have been admitted by the applicant/appellant in the impugned order that these cannot be decided by the Tribunal and these questions can be decided only by a High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, these questions also do not arise out of the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, the reference applications are rejected.
-
1987 (4) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... t is of a very big length. But here the learned Collector was mistaken, the products in the present case vary in length from 6 feet to 7 feet and strips are not in such short length nor are these products flattened coil. They are in straight lengths but are not in flattened coil (straight length) forms as the definition requires. 26. emsp If an assessment fetches higher revenue it should not be disturbed argued the learned SDR. There can be no objection to the assessment that fetches higher revenue provided the assessment is reasonable and proper. The assessment sought to be made here by the Collector (Appeals) will certainly fetch higher revenue but it is not correct nor can we say that the assessment made by the Assistant Collector is incorrect. If anything the Assistant Collector rsquo s assessment appears to be more correct as it is based not only on the practice but on technological facts. 27. We accordingly order assessment under Item 26AA(ia) as being more appropriate.
-
1987 (4) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court settled question of law not referable ... ... ... ... ..... olation of Gold Control Act is no longer a question of law much less a disputed question of law. 7. emsp Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Councel for the applicant also cited the cases reported in A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 451 A.I.R. 1956 Andhra Pra. 203 1970 Andhra Pra. 47 and A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 815 and also invited our attention to Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. But in our considered view the said authorities are not applicable to the controversy in hand. 8. Regarding Question No. (2) - During the course of arguments Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Councel for the applicant submitted that the proposed questions (1) and (2) overlaped each other and therefore the disposal of question No. (1) will also cover the disposal of question No. (2). We agree. For the reasons mentioned with respect to question No. (1) this question is also not referable. 9. In the result, the application is rejected as no question of law requiring reference is involved.
-
1987 (4) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Notification - Date of effect - Date printed on the Gazette irrelevant ... ... ... ... ..... is no question of issue of a notification with retrospective effect. ldquo It has been a settled proposition that a Tribunal being a creation of statute cannot look into the vires of the statutory provisions rdquo But recently, the Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Chopra and Others v. Union of India 1987 (28) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) , has held that a question relating to the validity of laws can be considered by the Administrative Tribunal and it can strike down a notification. The Administrative Tribunal in relation to which this pronouncement was made by the Supreme Court is not a Tribunal created under the constitution, but is a Tribunal created by a statute i.e. Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Special Benches of CEGAT are at par with the Benches of Administrative Tribunal as appeal against their order lies directly to the Supreme Court. Thus is view of this Supreme Court decision the Special Benches of the CEGAT, can now also examine the validity of statutory provisions.
-
1987 (4) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty on losses due to natural causes and unavoidable reasons ... ... ... ... ..... uch more so in the instant case in the circumstances discussed above. The fact that molasses is susceptible to loss by natural causes is recognised by the state authorities as well as the Central Board of Excise and Customs, when a loss of about 2 is allowed in case of storage in steel tanks. In this connection, attention is invited to Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular No. 261/15/82/CX-VIII, dated 18-7-1983. Having regard to the manner of storage, period of storage possible loss due to escape of gases on account of fermentation, we would be inclined to give the appellants benefit to the extent of 50 of the loss detected. Duty, therefore, would be chargeable on the balance quantity of loss detected by the Central Excise authorities. The impugned order is modified to the above extent so far as the liability of duty of the appellants is concerned. In the circumstances of the case, no justification of penalty is there. The penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is therefore set aside.
-
1987 (4) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal and Revision being different in scope, nature and content ... ... ... ... ..... y of revision, are well understood to be different in scope nature and content. Merely because earlier the Revenue had remedy of revision for which the limitation of one year was available would not mean that they should in absence of provision to that effect in law have the same limitation particularly when the provision itself is clear that limitation would be three months from the date of communication of the impugned order. 8. emsp As for Shri Sundar Rajan rsquo s argument that earlier for revision before amendment of the Act there was limitation of one year and after amendment right of appeal was conferred with a shorter period of limitation of three months and therefore delay may be condoned, it is sufficient to say that Tribunal had come into existence on 11-10-1982. The appeal is presented long after three months from 11-10-1982. No case therefore for condonation of delay is made out. 9. As a result, the appeal is held barred by limitation and rejected on that ground.
-
1987 (4) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... in the absence of any other material. rdquo In the present case, the evidence in the shape of invoice description was available. But, as the Counsel for the appellants pointed out, the word ldquo write rdquo , according to the Webster Universal Dictionary (Unabridged International Edition) means ldquo to engrave, draw, write rdquo . Therefore, it would appear that drawing paper would fall in the generic description of ldquo writing paper rdquo . 6. ensp The S.D.R. referred to the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Sunrise Agencies v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1986(26) E.L.T. 286. The goods in dispute there was art paper which the Tribunal found, was high grade printing and writing paper. Since the goods were different, the decision is of no application to the present case. 7. ensp In the circumstances, we hold that the subject goods fell under Heading No. 48.01/21(3) as claimed by the appellants. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (4) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of primary gold absolutely ... ... ... ... ..... d submits that the appellant was neither a dealer nor a goldsmith and that absolute confiscation is fully merited. 5. The facts of the case and the submissions made before us have been fully considered. There is no appeal against penalty imposed which is therefore upheld. 6. As regards the plea for release of the impugned gold on payment of a redemption fine, it is observed by us that as per the practice prevailing in the department in such cases while ordering confiscation redemption is invariably allowed on payment of fine. 7. Accordingly, upholding the confiscation of the gold we order release thereof on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-. 8. Per M. Santhanam, Member (J) . - Since the Appellants have urged that the gold belongs to two certified Goldsmiths and have also produced documentary evidence in support thereof, I agree with the Member (Technical) that while -upholding the confiscation the gold should be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-.
-
1987 (4) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... such as stainless steel, nickel, monel, incoloy, hastelloy and other valves lined with rubber of other corrosion-resisting materials steam traps 40 We have gone through the functions of the imported valves viz. globe valve. We feel that the description and function of the globe valve imported by the appellants is not that of isolating valve. isolating valve is a hand operated valve located between the packing lubricator assembly and the packing box assembly in a control valve. It is used to shut off the fluid pressure from the lubricator assembly. Whereas, on the contrary, globe valve is simply a device for regulating flow in a pipe line. The valves imported by the appellants do not have the function of an isolating valve and as such we hold that the lower authorities had correctly assessed the same under Heading 84.61 (1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal. We confirm the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Computer’s attachment ... ... ... ... ..... computer peripheral. During the course of hearing we asked both the parties to state that if there is no appliance or device which can, by itself, code data and transcribe it on the floppy disc. No such machine seems to exist. The Floppy Disc itself is always a separate unit from the Floppy Disc Drive and it is on this disc that the data is stored. The Floppy Disc and the Floppy Disc Drive are complementary to each other and each one is totally useless without the other. 6. emsp We also note that no computer can work without a mechanism for storage and there could be no recording or storage without the Floppy Disc Drive or similar equipment. 7. emsp In view of the observations made by us in the earlier decision, we do not find any reason why the appellant should be denied the benefit of the earlier judgment when the facts are similar. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1987 (4) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal dismissed for non-deposit of penalty and not for default ... ... ... ... ..... en Section 52 of the present FERA 1973 provides for the deposit of the amount of penalty imposed under Section 50 ibid and its second proviso empowers the Appellate Board to dispense with such deposit either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may deem fit where the Appellate Board is of the opinion that the deposit to be made will cause undue hardship to the appellant. It deserves to be mentioned here that under the corresponding provisions of the erstwhile FERA 1947 no such power to dispense with the mandatory requirement of such deposit was given to the Appellate Board. It appears that to avoid any undue hardship to the appellant the Legislature has made a provision in the FERA 1973 for dispensing with the requirement of such deposit if in the opinion of the Appellate Board asking the appellant to deposit will cause undue hardship. 8. emsp In the result, the reference application is rejected as no question of law meriting reference to the High Court arises.
-
1987 (4) TMI 167 - SUPREME COURT
Whether items were sought to be imported by diamond merchants were canalised, would not be an impediment to the import directly by them, the Court meant to say that this could be imported directly by them through the canalisation organisation. The need for canalisation stands on public policy and that need cannot be lightly or inferencially given a go-bye. It should not be presumed that collaterally the court had done away with the system of canalisation based on sound public policy. We have found nothing in the different authorities on this subject, which militate against the above views. Therefore, the action taken by the Customs authorities in issuing adjudication notice and proceeding in the manner they did, we are of the opinion that they have not acted illegally or without jurisdiction. This must proceed in accordance with law as laid down by this Court which, in our opinion, is clear enough. The fact that in subsequent decision, the petitioner is not a party is not relevant. Generally legal positions laid down by the court would be binding on all concerned even though some of them have not been made parties nor were served nor any notice of such proceedings given. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Excise duty charged on raw material to be included in assessable value of finished product
-
1987 (4) TMI 165 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - Delivery and Collection charges ... ... ... ... ..... ase. The charges incurred for loading the goods within the factory are to be included for the purpose of the value with no reference as to who pays the same as, the expenses incurred are within the factory gate and the price/value declared by the appellants is at factory gate. We accept the arguments of the ld. Consultant that charges incurred for loading the cylinders into the railway wagon at the railway station should not be included as these are not incurred within the factory and for all purposes this is transportation charges. 10. ensp Unloading charges too have to be excluded from the assessable value as these are outside the factory gate. This will be in consonance with law as it now prevails and according to the Case Law cited by both sides. In the result, we allow the appeal in respect of delivery and collection charges as also unloading charges and reject the same in respect of loading charges incurred within the factory premises. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... with the sale price of the finished goods. 3. emsp On careful consideration, we find that the stand of the lower authorities is correct. The price of the finished goods has to include the full cost of the raw materials and the tax payable on the raw materials is certainly a part of their cost. Under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the appellants are entitled to ask for exclusion of the taxes paid on the finished goods, which are the subject of assessment, but not of the taxes paid on the raw materials which go into the manufacture of the finished goods, vide Order No. 700/1986-A dated 28-8-1986 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. E-2884/84-A of M/s Khaitan Fans (P) Ltd. This order received confirmation of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court when the appeal filed by the assessee (Civil Appeals Nos. 106-107 of 1987) was dismissed by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court on 10-2-1987. 4. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and reject it.
............
|
