|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 214 Records
-
1987 (5) TMI 257
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ation exempts articles of glass or porcelain falling within Chapters 84 to 90 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. As we have seen, the subject goods are not made wholly of glass or of porcelain. They are composite goods consisting also of metal. There is no evidence as to the relative percentage of the constituents to enable us to see which is the pre-dominant or main constituent. In this state (or the lack) of evidence, we cannot sustain the finding of the Appellate Collector that the goods were eligible for the benefit of the said notification. The goods must be held to fall not under Heading 23-B(4) but under the residual Item No. 68 of the CET. 8. In the result, we hold that - (a) the subject goods fell under Heading No. 90.29 of the Customs Tariff Schedule (b) they were not eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 362/76 and (c) they were liable to additional duty of customs with reference to Item No. 68 CET. 9. This deemed appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1987 (5) TMI 256
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hich fall under Chapter 2 or 5. It is, therefore, clear that frozen pancreas glands fall under Chapter 5 and not Chpater 30. Notification 44 dated 1-3-1979 covers only dried pancreas falling under Chapter 30, not frozen pancreas falling under Chapter 5. 9. We are unable to accept, in the absence of any evidence, Shri Bharucha rsquo s contention that dried pancreas is not used for manufacture of insulin and that, hence, the exemption in Notification 44/79 for pancreas glands for the manufacture of insulin must be held to cover frozen pancreas. 10. We are also unable to accept the further contention that the appeal should be decided from the equity point of view since insulin is a life saving drug, subject to price-control. It is settled law that equity has no place in matters of interpretation of taxing statutes. 11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the impugned orders of the Appellate Collector are not correct. They are consequently set aside.
-
1987 (5) TMI 255
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... the business of manufacture will be included within Rule 13. Attention in this connection may be invited to a judgment of this court in which it was held that vehicles used by a company (which mined ore and turned out copper in carrying on activities as a minor and as a manufacturer) fell within Rule 13, even if the vehicles were used merely for removing ore from the mine to the factory, and finished goods from the factory to the place of storage. Spare parts and accessories required for the effective operation of those vehicles were also held to fall within Rule 13. rdquo In the background of the use to which acetone is put in dissolved acetylene and having regard to the interpretation of the expression in the Supreme Court decision aforesaid, to us it appears that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has rightly found in favour of the respondents. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order. We dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue and uphold the order.
-
1987 (5) TMI 254
Countervailing duty - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... 8 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be made applicable to imported goods to calculate the additional duty of Customs leviable thereon. In this context Sh. Saha cited 1986 (24) E.L.T. 456 (Karnataka B.S. Kamath and Co. and Others v. Union of India and Others. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by Shri Saha and have also perused the available papers including the Revision Application filed by the Appellants. The position as explained by Sh. Saha is correct. The Appellate Collector has taken into consideration the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Customs Act and correctly held that amendments cannot be allowed in respect of the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry when the goods are out of Customs rsquo control. Besides, the Karnataka High Court judgment cited by Shri Saha (Supra) has been followed by the Tribunal in a number of judgments. The present appeal therefore, has to fail on both grounds. We order accordingly and dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 253
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he material which gives the goods their essential character. There is no evidence on this point though Shri. Sogani contends that it is the rubber which gives the goods their character of an oil seal. May be, but there is no evidence. Then we fall back on Rule 3(c) by application of which the goods should be classified under the Heading which occurs the latest among those which merit equal consideration. Though both the headings under consideration are not specific for the goods, they merit equal consideration. Hence by application of Rule 3(c) the goods would be clas-sifiable under Heading 84.65. 8. Heading 84.64 does not seem to be applicable because the subject goods do not contain any metal component. Nor does it appear that the goods have been put up in pouches, envelops or similar packings. These circumstances would rule out Heading 84.64. 9. In the result, the goods are held to fall under Heading 84.65. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (5) TMI 252
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he learned SDR that the conjunction lsquo and rsquo appearing between lsquo accessories rsquo and lsquo parts rsquo could be read as lsquo or rsquo to make the meaning clear without distorting it. Otherwise, the meaning of the word lsquo accessories rsquo occurring in the said tariff item would extend to the limits of absurdity. 8. From a perusal of the literature consisting of the pamphlet filed before us and keeping in mind the various arguments advanced before us we do not agree that the airline gauge is for use solely or principally with the machine tools. We cannot extend to it the benefit of the Accessory Rules as the supply of the gauge is not compulsory, and, as seen from the printed pamphlet, it is an optional equipment. From the description given in the pamphlet it appears that the airline gauge is capable of general application and use. For these reasons we hold that the appellants have not succeeded in establishing their claims. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 251
Process of coating not to amount to manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... he eligible to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 23/55 on the appellants satisfying the lower authority that they have been using the minerals as extenders, suspending agents, fillers or as diluents. In view of this finding the impugned order, the demand of duty and penalty and confiscation there under are hereby set aside. The appellants shall be given opportunity by the Collector of Central Excise to satisfy him as to use of their product as extenders, suspending agents or fillers or as diluents. On their so satisfying complete exemption in respect of their product shall be given. If the appellants fail to satisfy about any portion of their product, duty on such portion subject however to six months limitation preceding the show cause notice as already set out above, shall be realised from the appellants. Collector shall do all this within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by him. 9. The appeal is allowed in the foregoing terms.
-
1987 (5) TMI 250
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... which was held not to amount to production of a commodity. On the other hand in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Dura Foam Industries (P) Ltd. 1986 (26) E.L.T. 341 , (supra) the Tribunal held that cutting of foam blocks by foam cutting machine leads to the production of different products which are marketable. In the present case the mass of catalyst was stated to be useless before palletisation. Therefore, it has to be held that the machine is used in the manufacture of catalyst pallets. There is a change in the input which comes out as output. We further note that the appellants manufacture the mass as well as the pallets. In the light of our earlier judgment in M/s. Dura Foam 1986 (26) E.L.T. 341 and on the facts of this matter, we hold that the imported machine is used for the production of a commodity, namely, catalyst pallets. In these circumstances we held that the imported machine should be correctly classified under Heading 84.59(2) CTA. 7. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 249
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tem 68 of the CET and not under Tariff Item 29A(3) of the CET. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 5. Shri J. Gopinath, ld. SDR, in reply, has referred to another judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India and Others v. Union of India reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1566 where the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court had held that chargeable event for the Customs Duty is importation and we have to go by the conditions in which it is imported. He has also argued that trade parlance is also important. 6. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Piano Type Switches imported by the respondent are specially meant for air-conditioners and we hold that the appellate Collector was not correct in reversing the order passed by the Assistant Collector. We hold that the CV Duty is leviable under Tariff Item 29A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 247
... ...
... ... ..... lf of the appellants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the Revision Application. He has stated that the goods are essential parts and not consumable items and has referred to catalogue. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, the ld. SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents, states that in view of the catalogue filed by the appellants, the goods imported are not consumable items but are accessories for the functioning of the ion meter. He has pleaded that he has got no objection if the appeal is allowed. He also agrees that adequate balance was there in NMIC and DE certificate. 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping in view the argument of both the sides we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 211/76. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1987 (5) TMI 246
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... t is clear that the imported goods are not entitled to the benefit of accessories Rules, their supply not having been compulsory and separate value being charged for them. 10. The only question that remains is whether the imported Punches and Dies are interchangeable tools or not. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Tribunal in Purewell (supra). As correctly pointed out by the ld. SDR the Dies imported in that case were intended only for one operation namely - manufacture of a part of watch. Besides, the explanation to the definition given by the International Standards Organisation shows that interchangeability is of two kinds namely - functional and dimensional. From a perusal of the packing list, and from the explanation given by the ld. SDR, we are convinced that the Punches and Dies imported in this case are interchangeable both functionally and dimensionally. The impugned order does not, therefore, call for interference. 11. In this view we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 244
Condonation of delay beyond six months ... ... ... ... ..... eal) had no power to condone delay beyond six months. He further argued that the Tribunal has no power to condone delay which has taken place before the Collector, especially when the Customs Law did not provide for the condonation of delay beyond six months. 8. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The legal position as represented by the ld. SDR is correct. There is no provision in the Customs Law by which delay beyond six months in fifing the appeal before the Collector can be condoned. We also agree that when the delay had taken place in filing the appeal before the Collector, the Tribunal cannot condone such delay. Therefore, however valid reasons there may be, it has to be held that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was legally correct in rejecting the appeal before him on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of the original order, and was therefore time-barred. 9. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 243
Air-conditioners ... ... ... ... ..... licence as their laboratory would not constitute a research and test laboratory. The question then would arise why the L-6 licence was given in the first place. In the next letter dated 20th August, 1983, the Assistant Collector informs the mills the same thing adding that the decision of the Collector was in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Notification No. 56/78-CE. and that no formal orders other than executive instructions were necessary. They were told that if they were aggrieved, they could make a representation to the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. This is a piece of futility, because it is difficult to see the purpose of making a representation to the Collector who had himself refused to accord the sanction for L-6. He would be a biased authority and would not be able to deliver a dispassionate judgment on the matter. 6. In any case, the decision to deny the concession was wrong. We direct that it should be given to the mills rsquo test laboratory.
-
1987 (5) TMI 242
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... sion Application. He states that when the Customs Authorities have accepted the classification under the Customs Act under Heading 85.01(1) and had extended the benefit of Notification No. 37/79 considering the same as component part for the assembly of electric motors, there is no reason why goods imported should not be assessed under Tariff Item 33(2) for the purpose of c.v. duty. Shri Gopinath states that there is no dispute as to the facts and he leaves it to the Bench. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The goods have been assessed under Heading 85.01(1) and benefit of Notification No. 37/79 has been extended to the appellants. The goods imported are specially designed as adopted drawings for fitment to these motors. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and hold that the goods imported are to be assessed under Tariff Item 33(2) of the CET for the purposes of c.v. duty. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 241
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... He has pleaded that the appellants arguments were not appreciated by the Bench and the appellant could not substantiate his claim. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeals. 4. Shri J. Gopinath, ld. S.D.R., who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, states that there is nothing new which can distinguish the present three matters from the earlier order passed by the Bench. There are no catalogues and other details of the goods imported. He has pleaded that the appeals may be dismissed as unsubstantiated. 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also gone through Headings 85.11 and 85.12. In the absence of any catalogue we do not find any reason to agree with the contentions of the learned Consultant. The lower authorities had correctly assessed the same under Heading 85.12. In view of the earlier judgments of the Tribunal we confirm the findings of the lower authorities. These three appeals are dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 240
Rate of duty prevalent as on the date of clearance of goods applicable ... ... ... ... ..... ccordance with this order of the Collector except at the rate appropriate at the relevant time of clearances. In the absence of an order by the adjudicating authority to recover duty at the 8 which was a duty recoverable only during a part of the period, recovery of duty under this order at any other rate is illegal. Of course, if the authorities want to recover duty at the highest rate of 8 they must take separate proceedings therefor. The present recovery is under this order of the Collector and no recovery at 8 rate of duty is lawful. 5. The Central Excise shall recover duty only at the correct rate applicable at the time relevant to the clearances during the period covered on the Collector rsquo s order. 6. The penalty is not a heavy one and the factory had indeed laid themselves open to the charge of clearance contrary to the law when they removed excisable goods without payment of duty, the charge is serious enough. 7. The appeal with respect to the penalty is rejected.
-
1987 (5) TMI 223
Valuation - Related persons ... ... ... ... ..... of each other. 6. After giving our due consideration to the arguments so advanced, we are of the view that there is no cogent evidence on record to take a contrary view than what the Appellate Collector has taken in the instant case. The circumstances pointed out by the learned SDR for the appellant as stated above, also do not change the complex of the case because the fact remains that such a huge number of wholesale dealers (51 in the instant case) spread all over the country, cannot be related persons, more particularly when there is no evidence on record to show that they (respondents and the wholesale dealers) have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. From the facts and circumstances stated by the learned SDR for the appellant, it cannot be concluded that they have interest in the business of each other. In the result, review notice issued by the Central Government is liable to be quashed. We accordingly, quash the review notice in question.
-
1987 (5) TMI 222
... ...
... ... ..... ed time. We are not told what the ldquo other charges rdquo are but they don rsquo t figure in the calculations relevant to landing charges. 13. The appeal tells us in no uncertain terms that the Bombay Port Trust did not render any services in respect of landing and stevedoring the goods that wharfage is distinct from landing and stevedoring charges and that the customs made an error in treating these charges as landing charges. It they did so after all this clarification, they would be doubly peccant. 14. This is enough to demonstrate that the importers have not made out a case for adding actual charges instead of the notional flat rate of 0.75 as landing charges, since they have not even shown, there are actual charges different from the notional flat 0.75 . 15. The plea for the Tribunal to declare the principle in favour of actual charges falls. This court cannot declare a principle when the very grounds for such a declaration are absent. 16. All the appeals are rejected.
-
1987 (5) TMI 217
Graphite in all forms eligible for exemption ... ... ... ... ..... e available in respect of graphite in the form in which it is produced. 6. In view of this, therefore, we hold that the duty demanded from appellant is not maintainable in law. ldquo So far as the licensing aspect is concerned inasmuch as the goods are exempted from payment of duty no licence is required to be obtained. In this view of the matter no violation of licensing provisions is involved and therefore no penalty is leviable under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The order of levy of penalty is, therefore, set aside. rdquo 7. Since we have allowed the appeal in the above terms we are not giving our findings in regard to the other points raised. In this context we also observe that the learned Consultant for the appellants has not pressed the point as to whether the processing of the ore for the production of Graphite by the appellants constitutes manufacture and whether any goods with different name and character and use came into existence by the said processing.
-
1987 (5) TMI 214
Shipping Bills presented and passed but goods not loaded ... ... ... ... ..... with respect to the full export value amounts to a prohibition for the purpose of Section 114 of the Customs Act. In the case of South India Coir Mills, Poockakkal v. Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, supra, the appellant firm M/s. South India Coir Mills was found guilty for untrue declaration under Section 12(1) of FERA, 1947 and in view of Section 11 of the Customs Act, the goods were confiscated under Section 113(d) and the penalty was imposed under Section 114 of the said Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the confiscation and also the imposition of the penalty, but reduced the same in the facts and circumstances of that case. In the instant case, the value of the goods declared in the Shipping Bills in the Indian currency is Rs. 7,60,000/- C and F and Rs. 7,07,066/- FOB. Under these circumstances, the penalty imposed in the instant case upon the appellants is legal. 32. In the result all the three appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merits.
........
|
