|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 214 Records
-
1987 (5) TMI 211 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Export of goods under bond ... ... ... ... ..... aim rebate of duty on exported goods provided under Rule 12 on proof of export. The person who had removed excisable goods for export in bond cannot claim exemption from payment of duty by reason of Rule 14-A. 13. Rule 14 A authorises the Collector to levy penalty and refuse to permit a person from making further export of excisable goods in bond besides making a demand for immediate payment to excise duty if a person who has removed excisable goods for export in bond had failed to export or furnish proof of such export to the satisfaction of the Collector. Clause (c) of the said Rules precludes the Collector from resorting to penalty provisions provided under Rule 14-A if he is satisfied that the goods removed for export were duly accounted for. Neither Clause (c) nor Rule 14-A authorises the Collector to exempt from payment of duty on goods removed for export in bond. 14. In the above view of the matter, I agree with brother Dilipsinghji that this appeal should be rejected.
-
1987 (5) TMI 208 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Seizure of diamonds by Income Tax Officers ... ... ... ... ..... oods. On the other hand the expert who examined the seized diamonds opined ldquo I have examined the lot Nos. 1 and 2 of the above mentioned cut and polished diamonds. The mode of diamond cutting in brilliant fashion is universal. Hence it is not possible to state the origin of the goods rdquo . If that be so, the Assistant Collector who does not claim expertise, cannot in the absence of any other evidence form an opinion that the seized diamonds were smuggled goods. Therefore, the seizure could not have been in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. 27. As has been rightly held by brother Dilipsinhji, there is also rebuttal evidence to establish that the seized diamonds are not smuggled. 28. In the result and for the reasons stated above, I agree with brother Dilipsinhji that all the four appeals be allowed and the penalty imposed on the appellants should be set aside and the penalty, if paid, shall have to be refunded to the appellants and we order accordingly.
-
1987 (5) TMI 205 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Questions of law already resolved or settled by High Court not referable ... ... ... ... ..... rt or the High Courts, then, of course, a question of law would arise. But the questions framed do not expressly or impliedly indicate that the Tribunal had failed to apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court or the High Courts. If any question of law is settled by the Supreme Court, it ceases to be a question of law and, therefore, making reference to the High Court of such a settled question of law would not arise. 8. There is considerable force in the contention of Shri Pal that in the guise of a reference application, the applicant is seeking a review of the order in the appeal. The Tribunal has not been conferred with the power to review its earlier order. Even otherwise, the power of review is beyond the scope of reference application. While considering the reference application, the Tribunal does not sit in judgment over its earlier order. Viewed from any angle, the present application has no merit and it deserves to be rejected and accordingly the same is rejected.
-
1987 (5) TMI 204 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... ide that part of the penalty. So far as the penalty on the appellant is concerned, we see no justifiable reason to interfere with. He has deliberately taken a plea that the cameras were given to him for repairs and he could not even produce one single owner who had given the camera for repairs. Looking to the gravity of the offence, we do not consider that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant K.S. Bhatia is excessive or even unjust. 18. In the result we allow appeal No. CD(BOM)537/83 and set aside the penalty on the firm. The penalty, if paid, shall be refunded. 19. While rejecting the appeal No. CD(BOM)536/83 we, set aside the absolute confiscation of non-notified goods. We direct the customs authorities to return the non-notified goods to the appellant K.S. Bhatia. If the non-notified goods which are directed to be returned, were already sold, the sale proceeds after deducting the expenses connected with the sale, may be paid to the appellant, Kishan Shamdas Bhatia.
-
1987 (5) TMI 199 - CEGAT , BOMBAY
Stay application by department ... ... ... ... ..... onth. Therefore, the apprehension of the Department that they would not be able to recover this paltry sum of Rs. 24,000/- if they succeed in the appeal is totally baseless. Shri Pattekar did not reply to the statements made by Shri Sukumaran. Shri Pattekar did not dispute that the respondents have a factory within the jurisdiction of the Collector. As stated earlier, we are satisfied with the statements made by Shri Sukumaran that they are paying Rs. 40,00,000/- per month. The affidavit of the Dy. Collector appear to have been made without verifying the facts and in a cavaliar manner. On consideration of all the facts, we are satisfied that the application does not merit any consideration and accordingly we reject the same.
-
1987 (5) TMI 198 - BEFORE THE CEGAT
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... that there are mistakes which need to be rectified. Accordingly, we direct that the following corrections shall be incorporated at the appropriate places in the said Order. (a) In the place of the third and fourth sentences in para 4 on page 4, the following shall be inserted - ldquo It was, however, his contention that the products of manufacture, namely, the gaskets fell under Item No. 68 Central Excise Tariff. If, however, it was held that they would fall under Item No. 22F(iv), they would not be liable to duty again under the said item since that would amount to double taxation. rdquo (b) Para 9 on page 8 may be read as follows - ldquo Shri Venkataraman contended before us that though rdquo manufacture was involved in the conversion of gasketing sheets into gaskets, the resultant gaskets would fall under Item No. 68 CET. In the alternative, he submitted that if they were classified under Item No. 22(iv), they would not be liable to duty a second time under that heading.
-
1987 (5) TMI 193 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... d in this view of the matter, I confirm the finding of the adjudicating authority under the impugned order. The learned counsel at this stage made a plea for reduction in the quantum of penalty and submits that the appellant is wallowing in abject poverty and is also facing criminal prosecution in the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam. The learned counsel also pleaded that the appellant is only a labourer and has been a victim of circumstance, lured by petty monetary consideration to play the role of a carrier and has 5 sisters to support. Taking this circumstance into consideration, I reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) and the penalty under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. one thousand and five hundred only). Except for the above modification, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appellants liable to imposition of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the recovery from the premises of M/s. Rajathi Agencies and I have also set out the circumstance imputing knowledge of the same to M/s. Rajathi Agencies. I do not find any substance in the plea of the learned counsel that the Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to effect seizure of the goods and take further proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The facts and circumstances of the case are squarely covered by Section 11(d) and (p) of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequently the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Act. The penalty on appellant Kannan is only Rs. 1,000/- and his complicity has been clearly established and the penalty on M/s. Rajathi Agencies is only Rs. 25,000/- and the goods viz. snake skins which were illegally attempted to be exported in. contravention of law is valued at Rs. 5,84,375/- and, therefore, no interference in regard to the same is called for. In the result, the impugned order is affirmed and the appeals are dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 191 - CEGAT, MADRAS
T.V. - Import ... ... ... ... ..... em 4 in Appendix 7 dealing with O.G.L. I am not able to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel because I do not find any ambiguity with reference to the nature of the item imported and if really the licensing authorities had intended to cover the item in question under O.G.L., there is no reason as to why it was not specifically listed. The plea of the learned Counsel that the expression lsquo trade sample rsquo would cover all items, is too vague and too comprehensive to be accepted, particularly in interpreting a clause in the Licensing Policy. Therefore, on a totality of the consideration of the evidence before me, I am inclined to hold that the item in question imported by the appellant is not permissible under Open General Licence notwithstanding the fact that the appellant has a recognised Research and Development unit and is holding an industrial licence for the manufacture of colour T.V. The impugned order is, therefore, affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 190 - CEGAT, MADRAS
jurisdiction and quashable ... ... ... ... ..... nd Haryana High Court in the case of lsquo Oswal Woollen Mills rsquo referred to in the case of lsquo Industrial Cables Ltd. and another rsquo v. Union of India and others rsquo , reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 33 (P. and H.) and the earlier rulings of the Tribunal, we are inclined to hold that the impugned order appealed against is without jurisdiction in law. In this view of the matter without going into the merits of the issue, we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal with consequential relief. 5. ensp Shri Habibullah Badsha, the learned Counsel at this stage submits that a substantial amount remains locked up with the Department since the year 1984 and, therefore, a direction may be given for expeditious refund of the same in the light of this order. Having regard to the facts that the issue is pending since the year 1984, we direct the authorities to grant refund in terms of this order within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1987 (5) TMI 188 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Wooden crates and cases cleared for captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... ral Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Amendment Act, 1985 (6 of 1986), or the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Amendment Act, 1985 (7 of 1986) or (b) maintaining the effective rates of duties of excise in respect of certain goods at the level obtaining prior to 1st day of March, 1986 notwithstanding the changes in rates of duties of excise made by the Finance Bill, 1986, shall, insofar as such notification relates to such goods, be deemed to have, and to have always had, effect on and from the 1st day of March, 1986. rdquo As rightly contended by the learned Consultant and as very fairly not disputed by the learned D.R., the appellant would be entitled to the benefits of Notification No. 227/86-CE with retrospective effect in respect of the goods manufactured by him and consumed captively. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 187 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... an order passed by a competent superior authority in adjudication namely, the Deputy Collector of Central Excise. Nobody can contend with any justification in law that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is an appellate authority over the order passed by a Deputy Collector of Central Excise in adjudication in terms of Section 11B of the Act. Unless in the instant case it is held that the issue is directly and squarely covered by Section 11B(3) of the Act, any other interpretation or the one which the learned D.R. is pleading, would lead to a situation of manifest anomaly and ..... as indicated above. Therefore, on consideration of the issue and the materials before me, I have no hesitation to hold that the appellant does not have to take out a refund application at all in the present case in the facts and circumstances as it is squarely covered by Section 11 B(3) of the Act. In this view of the matter I set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... progress in Technology and Science, more so in the concept of computers as a revolutionary invention for development and advancement of knowledge, a Micro Computer Trainer can hardly be equated as a computer itself. The limited facility provided by this machine has to be borne in mind before it is assessed to duty. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that machine is not classifiable as computer under Item 33DD. It is rightly classifiable under TI 68. I agree with my learned brother that the penalty is not justified. New Delhi, Date 25th Feb., 1987. Sd./- (M. Santhanam) Member (J) FINAL ORDER . - (1) ED(SB)(T)/No. 1456/81-B-1 and (2) ED(SB)(T)/ No. 399/82-B-l. 25. ensp Following the findings of the Hon rsquo ble President, we hold that the goods are classifiable under TI 68 and not under TI 33DD. Penalty set aside. Appeal disposed of accordingly. Consequential reliefs to follow. Sd./- (M. Santhanam) Member (J) New Delhi, Dated 3rd June, 1987. Sd./- (H.R. Syiem) Member
-
1987 (5) TMI 183 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Incentive rebate in excess availed of erroneously ... ... ... ... ..... al Excise, Cochin reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 42 wherein the applicability of the bar of limitation in respect of a wrong credit taken by a party in terms of Rule 56A has been upheld. If one were to take a contrary view, it would lead to a very anomalous situation of the Department being entitled to call back the excess credit taken on grounds of mistake or error without any bar of limitation at all. Irrespective of the appellation ldquo credit rdquo , the party who is permitted to take credit in the PLA virtually enjoys the benefit which a party who gets refund enjoys and, therefore, the contention of the Department that irregular or excess credit cannot be equated to sums of money refunded is not tenable. Therefore, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case and following the ratio in the decisions referred to supra, I am inclined to hold that the impugned order appealed against is sustainable in law and in this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 157 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification list wrongly approved ... ... ... ... ..... refore, though the proper officer has been invested with the power to modify an approved classification list, if he thinks that classification list was wrongly approved, he can make such modification with prospective effect only after giving an opportunity to the assessee to show cause why the classification should not be changed. Since the burden of proof is primarily on the Excise authorities to establish whether a particular product falls under one item or the other, the manufacturer must be given a full-fledged opportunity to satisfy the authorities regarding the classification of their product. I, therefore, hold that the revision of the classification by the authorities suo motu on the basis of the ruling of the Tribunal referred to supra without putting the affected party on notice thereof is not legally tenable, so consequently a demand in terms of Section 11 A of the Act, is not sustainable in law. The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Duty paid character of goods vis-a-vis Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ure lost its duty-paid character. If the same Indigo Pure was utilised in the manufacture of Solubilised Vats, i.e. Solatic Blue 4 BC, the end product could not be said to have been manufactured out of duty-paid dye, i.e. duty paid Indigo Pure. As a result, the benefit of Notification No. 180/61-C.E., was not available to the appellants in respect of Solatic Blue 4 BC. The debit entry in P.L.A. on a subsequent date with a view to availing of the exemption under this Notification does not render the said Indigo Pure the duty paid character. In the circumstances, the authorities below correctly denied the benefit of notification to the appellants. The appeal filed before us, has, therefore, no merits. In the result, we find no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal. 5. emsp As the appeal is being dismissed on merits, we are not called upon to discuss the other points raised by the appellants before us.
-
1987 (5) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... rovision of Section 35-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to him for de novo decision according to the provision of law and after giving necessary opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. While examining the case de novo, Collector (Appeals) should also take into account the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1986-(24)-E.L.T.-290 regarding the classification of the disputed goods and other two decisions cited by the learned Advocate during the hearing, as set out above. De novo proceedings should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Order per Shri S.D. Jha, Vice-President (Judicial) . - I would only like to add that the expression an ldquo appealable order rdquo is well understood concept in Central Excise and Customs and such an order was not passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. I would, therefore, agree with the order proposed by brother Mandal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Excess production incentive scheme ... ... ... ... ..... when exactly their excess clearances would start. Since the Assistant Collector took time in giving his approval and the appellants soon thereafter quantified the amount of concession admissible to them and filed a specific refund claim, their refund claim was well in time and it was not necessary for them to pay duty under protest. Accordingly, it was held, the refund claim was not barred by limitation. Similarly, in the case of K.B. Foams Private Ltd., 1985 (19) E.L.T.-476, this Tribunal held that in the case of production incentive under Notification No. 198/76-C.E., the period of limitation for refund should run from the date of approval of base clearance and not from the date of payment of duty. This decision is dated 14-11-84. In the recent past, this Tribunal has held similar view in several other cases. We have no reasons to take a different view. Respectfully following these decisions, we uphold the impugned orders in the present cases and dismiss these two appeals.
-
1987 (5) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... e purpose of basic customs duty it is classifiable under this Heading. In the Central Excise Tariff, there is no specific entry for acid oil and, therefore, this Tribunal classified it under Tariff Item 12 Vegetable non-essential oil, based on other factors as discussed in the decision reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 479. The Customs Act and the Central Excises and Salt Act are two separate and independent enactment rsquo s. The classification of a product under one Act does not govern the classification under another Act. Similar is the case vis-a-vis classification for the I.T.C. purpose. 3. emsp In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the imported acid oil was correctly assessed under Tariff Heading 15.08/13 of the Central Tariff Act, 1975 without giving the benefit of Notification No. 42/79-Cus., dated 1-3-1979. There is no justification for interfering with the decision of the lower authorities. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of duty. He points out that on the assessment as made by the authorities under the headings mentioned in the bill of entry the entitlement for benefit of concessional duty under notification 281/76 as amended should have been considered, but had not been considered, by the lower authorities. 4. emsp Since the case of the appellants appears to have been disposed of with reference to a notification which obviously did not apply to the facts of the case but the proper notification has now been put forward we hold that the matter has to be remitted, in the interests of justice, to the Assistant Collector so that he may look into the issue with reference to the claim now made and grant relief, if available, under the said notification. 5. emsp Accordingly appeal is allowed, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector for adjudication afresh with reference to the claim for benefit under notification No. 281/76 as amended.
........
|
