|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 233 Records
-
1987 (6) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... bunal. 2. Shri D.S. Kulkarni, Head Clerk has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the revision application. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned S.D.R. who has appeared on behalf of the respondent states that Inlet and Exhaust valves are to be assessed under Heading 84.06 and the findings of the Appellate Collector of Customs are correct. He has pleaded that Heading 84.61 covers valves for pipes, boilers, tanks, pressure reducing valves and thermostatically controlled valves and excludes Inlet and Exhaust valves of internal combustion engines from its scope. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 3. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We hold that Inlet and Exhaust valves along with spares are parts of Internal Combustion Engine and are correctly classified under Heading 84.06 to CTA, 1975. We confirm the findings of the Appellate Collector of Customs. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CENTRAL RAILWAY Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS ... ... ... ... ..... pter 86. He states that the Valve and Plunger are to be assessed under Heading 84.06. Regarding Bushing and Disc he states that the same should be assessed under Heading 84.63. Shri Gopinath further states that the importation has taken place in April, 1977 and Notification No. 281/Cus/76 was amended by Notification No. 187-Cus dated 27th August, 1977 bringing the parts of Locomotive Diesel Engine within the perview of this Notification. He has stated that for Bushing and Disc the appellant rsquo s appeal may be allowed and for other items viz. Heads, Valve and Plunger the appeal should be rejected as the same were correctly assessed. 4. We have heard both the sides. We hold that Heads, Valves and Plungers were correctly assessed under Heading 84.06. For Bushing and disc we order that the same fall under Heading 84.63 of CTA, 1975. Accordingly the order passed by the lower authorities is revised to this extent. Except for this modification in the order the appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (6) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... llow the appellants rsquo claim for this item. 3. So far as the second item - Modulpac-C Assembly is concerned, the appellants admit that it is nothing but mounted printed circuit board. We find that printed circuits are specifically mentioned in Heading 85.18/27. In view of Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, parts specified under a Heading in Chapters 84 and 85 are to be assessed under that Heading only even though they may be essential components of a machine and such machines may have been listed under a different Heading. We hold that Heading 85.18/27(1), as invoked by the lower authorities, is specific for Modulpac-C Assembly and is, therefore, correct. The claim of the appellants for this item is rejected. 4. In the result, we allow the appeal in part only so far as Item (1) of the Bill of Entry - Converter with Fan Assembly is concerned. This item should be re-assessed / under Heading 85.01 and consequential relief shall be granted to appellants.
-
1987 (6) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Motor Relays and Thermo Flasher Relays ... ... ... ... ..... herefore, apply to them. 3. Regarding Motor Relays, there could be some scope to say that they were not ordinary relays but were fitted with motors. Even so, since the motors were of 220 volts, they would fall under heading 85.01(2), which carried the same rate of duty as had already been assessed by the lower authorities. In any case, even motors relays would not fall under heading 85.16. 4. We do appreciate the appellants rsquo submission that both Motor Relays and Flasher Relays were part of Railway Traffic Control equipment but since the statutory direction in the Tariff Note 2(a) of Section XVI is that when a specific heading for parts themselves is available, they should be assessed under that heading only and not with the main machine or equipment of which they are a part, relays have to be assessed under the specific heading only and not under heading 85.16. 5. In the result, we uphold the rate of duty as already applied by the lower authorities and reject the appeal.
-
1987 (6) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeals - Without signature ... ... ... ... ..... nch noted that there were no signatures on the papers purporting to be appeals. There are, therefore, no appeals before us to hear. 2. The Registry may return the papers to the persons who filed them, and close the list.
-
1987 (6) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation of damaged/defective goods ... ... ... ... ..... o-called quotations. For the reasons stated above I hold that the assessment of the goods on the basis of the so-called quotations from the dealers is a ruse to hoodwink the Govt. in the matter of payment of duty. We have ourselves gone through the entire evidence on record and have specially perused the so-called quotation and find no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Collector. Even during the course of the hearing before us the learned counsel for the appellants could not satisfy us as to on what basis the various parties submitted their quotations without seeing the goods in question, and in the instant case it is admitted to the appellants that the goods in respect of which quotations were submitted by the customers was never inspected or shown to the alleged customers. 5. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we find no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
-
1987 (6) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication order ... ... ... ... ..... r who issued the show cause notice on 25-2-1982 called upon the factory to show cause why duty on the steel ingots and steel castings should not be determined under Rule 9A(4)(iii). This rule lays down that the rate of duty will be the rate in force on the day on which the loss in storage in the factory or warehouse is ldquo discovered by the proper officer or made known to him rdquo . There was no show cause notice for assessing the duty at the rate at which the duty is actually paid i.e. Rule 9A(5). The show cause notice was only in terms of fixing duty in terms of Rule 9A(iii) and that is the only action that the Additional Collector could lawfully take in the proceedings. Since no show cause notice has been issued for this present process and for the action ordered by the Additional Collector, his order is unlawful and is set aside. 5. Order per M. Santhanam, Member (J) . - For the reasons stated in paragraph 4 of the order, I agree with the conclusions of my Ld. Brother.
-
1987 (6) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ral Excise whereas the authorisation of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras to file the appeal against the impugned order-in-appear was in favour of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Judicial), Madras. Consequently, the appeal, having not been signed and filed by a duly authorised officer of the Collector, is not a competent appeal. We dismiss it as such.
-
1987 (6) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drilling, Grinding and Cutting machines ... ... ... ... ..... n-electric motor. This heading in the CCCN covered such tools only for working in the hand. The expression ldquo tools for working in the hand rdquo means tools designed to be held in the hand during use and also heavier tools which are portable i.e. which can be lifted and moved by hand by the user in particular while work is in progress. To obviate fatigue of taking their full weight during operation auxiliary supporting devices like Tripods, Jacklegs etc., are provided. Hence it is not correct to say that these are only mini-machine tools which are so small that can be taken to the job which may be too heavy to be moved easily or which could be fastened to a fixture and used as a stationary machine on a working bench to use tools such as twist drills, rammers, taps etc. We are of the view that in view of the earlier decision, and in the light of the pamphlet filed by the appellants, the products are assessable under Tariff Item 51A(ii). The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1987 (6) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ellants vide their letter dated llth May, 1987 have intimated that the matter may be decided on merits in their absence. 3. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned S.D.R. who has appeared on behalf of the respondent stated that the appellants have not attached the copy of the grounds of appeal placed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). On merits Shri Gopinath stated that the exposure unit falls under Heading 90.10 and the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15-1-1977. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned S.D.R. and have gone through the respective headings viz. 84.34 and 90.10 and have also gone through Notification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15th January, 1977. We feel that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification 11/77. We uphold the classification under 90.10 and confirm the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in open court.
-
1987 (6) TMI 260 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... lector of Customs v. M/s. Tata Merlin and Gerin Ltd. where it was held that transmission system includes distribution also. Shri Saha had nothing more to say in respect of the claims of the appellant. 5. We have considered the facts of the matter and submissions made by both sides. It has been explained by the appellants with the help of a photograph that imported insulators are used in overhead transmission line. We adhere to earlier view of the Tribunal that no distinction need be made between the transmission line and distribution line. We feel that the submissions made by Shri Chandrasekhar, that between the point of generation and consumption there is only transmission system and this includes both transmission and distribution, is acceptable. In this view we hold that the imported goods are insulators designed for use in electrical transmission system which is admittedly of above 400 Volts. We allow the appeal and order consequential relief. 6. Pronounced in open court.
-
1987 (6) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... all over. He submitted that these processes clearly show that at the time of importation the wheels/tyres were in a very crude form and nowhere near the final shape which is the assessment as done by the Customs. 6. Shri D.K. Saha, Ld. JDR, after examining the facts and circumstances and perusing the appellate order, has nothing to say in the matter. 7. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. It is clear from the submissions of the appellants and also the contents of the appellate order that imported goods were in a crude form far from the finished stage at the time of importation. Therefore, it was not correct to hold that they should have been classified as a finished products. They will be considered as rolled products and classified under Heading 26AA(ia). The appellants rsquo claim for 26AA(1) was obviously an error which emanated out of the ignorance of the Tariff. In this view, we allow these appeals and order consequential relief. Pronounced in open court.
-
1987 (6) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condition of delay ... ... ... ... ..... red for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. emsp There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. emsp It must be gripped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so . 9. In the instant case it cannot be contended nor it is contended that there was a wanton delay on the part of the Collector. No malafide or negligence on his part is allege. 10. If we have regard to the weighty observations of the Supreme Court in the case referred to above, the present applications deserves to be allowed and accordingly I allow these applications and condone the delay, if any, and direct that all the appeals be admitted.
-
1987 (6) TMI 241 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Failure to place Panchanama ... ... ... ... ..... se of the petitioner, despite the suspicions of the Customs Authorities to the contrary, was, in our opinion, a vital fact. Since it was not placed before the detaining authority, the order of detention must be said to have been vitiated on that account. 7. In the instant case, as we have pointed out earlier, the Sponsoring Authority had failed to place the Panchanama in which it was shown that nothing incriminating was discovered from the residence of the Detenu. We consider this Panchanama to be a vital document which would have materially influenced the Detaining Authority in arriving at his subjective satisfaction whether or not to issue the Order of Detention. The argument that a nil Panchanama is of no consequence, as stated by the Home Secretary, is unacceptable. Failure to place the material and vital document before the Detaining Authority, therefore, vitiated the Order of Detention. 8. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The Detenu shall be released forthwith.
-
1987 (6) TMI 238 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import - Beverages and spirits ... ... ... ... ..... e conclusion. 9. Mr. Talyarkhan appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to a judgment given by Pendse J. in Writ Petition No. 2407 of 1982 (Tata Exports Limited v. the Union of India) in which the question was relating to ldquo Concentrate Brandy rdquo . Here again, the Customs authorities had similar confusion in their mind and tried to suggest that what was imported was ldquo Brandy rdquo and not ldquo Concentrate Brandy rdquo . This was expressly negatived by the learned Judge and he had set aside the impugned decision in those proceedings. 10. In the result, the petitioners succeed in the petition. I make the Rule absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. As regards the refund of the penalty, the respondents shall pay the amount back to the petitioners within a period of two months from today. As regards the bank guarantee given by the petitioners, the same stands discharged. Respondents will also pay costs of this petition to the petitioners.
-
1987 (6) TMI 237 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Search and seizure ... ... ... ... ..... hri Md. Farooq and the amount of penalty deposited be refunded to him. 11. So far as the appeals of Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali, M/s Gemstar Company and Shri Ravindra Laxmidas Solanki are concerned, they are not aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs (P), Bombay and therefore there cannot be any appeals from these parties. When the Bench questioned the learned advocate of the appellants why these 3 appellants had come up in appeals before the Tribunal the learned advocate replied that this was by way of confirmation of the appeal of Shri Md. Farooq. In law, no such confirmation of the appeal by others is required. Indeed if such confirmatory appeals were permitted, the work of the Appellate Authority would proliferate beyond manageable proportion and the Appellate authority would not be able to dispense justice. There is therefore no substance in the appeals of Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali, M/s.Gemstar Company and Shri Ravindra Laxmidas Solanki and we reject their appeals.
-
1987 (6) TMI 236 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Search and seizure ... ... ... ... ..... hri Md. Farooq and the amount of penalty deposited be refunded to him. 11. So far as the appeals of Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali, M/s Gemstar Company and Shri Ravindra Laxmidas Solanki are concerned, they are not aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs (P), Bombay and therefore there cannot be any appeals from these parties. When the Bench questioned the learned advocate of the appellants why these 3 appellants had come up in appeals before the Tribunal the learned advocate replied that this was by way of confirmation of the appeal of Shri Md. Farooq. In law, no such confirmation of the appeal by others is required. Indeed if such confirmatory appeals were permitted, the work of the Appellate Authority would proliferate beyond manageable proportion and the Appellate authority would not be able to dispense justice. There is therefore no substance in the appeals of Shri Rajesh K. Bhansali, M/s.Gemstar Company and Shri Ravindra Laxmidas Solanki and we reject their appeals.
-
1987 (6) TMI 229 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Ownership of seized goods claimed by one person ... ... ... ... ..... der in conformity with the judgment of the High Court. When the High Court cannot go into the question of facts or the issues of facts in its reference jurisdiction the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant had failed to establish his claim would not get disturbed. If that finding does not get disturbed then the other findings on other issues even if they are considered as questions of law would not alter the result of the appeal. It is because of this reason the Tribunal observed in its order that since the appellant did not substantiate his claim it would not be necessary for the Tribunal to consider the validity or otherwise of the order of confiscation passed by the Collector and confirmed by the Board. The question at serial No. 5 even otherwise, does not arise from the Tribunal rsquo s order. No such contention had been urged during the hearing of the appeal. In the result and for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, we reject this Reference Application.
-
1987 (6) TMI 226 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Demurrage charges pertaining to port trust ... ... ... ... ..... tice. In other words, the lien will remain attached to the said goods despite their removal to the bonded warehouse. Mr. Dhanuka on behalf of the Petitioners - Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us expressly consents and agrees to the aforesaid position. It is made clear that the removal of goods is permitted on this express basis accepted by the petitioners that the statutory lien of the B.P.T. is protected and will be preserved till express orders of the Court to the contrary. 4. In view of this clarification and recording of consent, no further Orders in the Appeal appear to be necessary at that stage in view of the fact that the Motion itself is to come up before the Writ Court on 12th June, 1987. It is directed that on 12th June ,1987 the Motion will be placed high up before the Writ Court and the Writ Judge is requested to dispose of the same preferably on 12th, June 1987 itself. Parties to bear their own costs of the Appeal. The Appeal is deemed to be finally disposed of.
-
1987 (6) TMI 223 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Jurisdiction - Seizure of assessed goods ... ... ... ... ..... toms (itself) to take any action whatsoever under Customs Act, 1962. 85. We may, however, mention en passant that we view with great respect the views expressed by our brothers of South Regional Bench in their orders namely 517/86 and 518/86 1986 (9) ECR 623 CEGAT (SRB) cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. 86. We consider that in view of the position stated above, we need not go into other submissions made by both the sides and it will be sufficient to say that the Calcutta Customs had neither the, jurisdiction to seize nor to adjudicate the case in respect of the goods in question. 87. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the position in law as cited above, the impugned order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, is without jurisdiction and bad in law. It is set aside as such. 88. The appeal is accepted, as announced in the open Court. 89. As the main appeal has been accepted, the M.A. No. 11/87, has become infructuous. It is dismissed as such.
........
|
