|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 291 Records
-
1987 (8) TMI 345
Exemption to goods imported by a research institution ... ... ... ... ..... nstitution rdquo , the present notification used the modified expression ldquo imported by a Research Institution rdquo , the modification in the language used has to be given due weight and consideration. The record shows that M/s. I.T.I. imported the goods for their R and D Unit. It is not the same thing as saying that imports were made by the R and D Unit. 11. Finally, the pleading of the appellants that since the goods had been fully utilised in research by the R and D Unit, the purpose of the notification had been fulfilled and the importations should, therefore, be allowed duty-free under the exemption notification is not acceptable. The exemption notification has to be interpreted strictly. Since one of the conditions of the notification was that the goods should be imported by the Research Institution and since that condition has not been fulfilled in the present cases, the benefit of the notification cannot be given. 12. In the result, we dismiss all the 596 appeals.
-
1987 (8) TMI 344
Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... s the Collector (Appeals) has rightly held, barred by limitation. We note from the impugned order than an even stanger argument had been advanced by the Assistant Collector in confirming the amount demanded in the show cause notice of 8-2-1982. It was that the respondents had classified their goods under Item No. 68 in the classification list submitted by them whereas the correct classification was under Item No. 61. Apparently, the Assistant Collector considered this as a wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the respondents. Classification, as the Collector (Appeals) has rightly observed, is the function of the assessing officer. The duty of the assessee is to render a correct description of the goods. No charge had been levelled that there was incomplete, wrong or mis-description of the goods. In the circumstances, the question of invoking the extended period of limitation simply did not arise. 4. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 343
... ...
... ... ..... ises and Salt Act. Therefore, any reference to duty, in notifications issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules also, would have to have the same meaning. If so, the payment of duty under Item 15-A CET, as referred to in the notification, would have to be Central Excise Duty only. In this connection we may refer to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of United Metal Industries 1985 (28) E.L.T. 404) . The above view, that the reference to payment of duty in notifications issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules would be reference to payments of Central Excise duty only and not the equivalent additional duty of customs was upheld in that decision. We are in respectful agreement with the said decision. In that view we hold that the payment of additional duty of customs under Item 15-A CET in the present instance would not entitle the appellants to claim benefit under Notification 268 of 1967. 8. We accordingly uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (8) TMI 340
Refund - Proforma credit ... ... ... ... ..... ong was in terms of Rule 56A only. In this background, therefore, it cannot be held that the appellants rsquo claim was barred by limitation. The Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Union of India and Others -1987 (30) E.L.T. 71 (Bom.) have held since the price fixation was still being considered even though duty was not paid on provisional basis, the final assessment could not be taken to have taken place. Following the ratio of this judgment we hold that the assessment in the case of the appellants could not be considered final inasmuch as request for permission to avail of facility under Rule 56A was still pending. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and direct the Assistant Collector to consider the case de novo in the light of the above observations. The appellants may be granted the benefit of Rule 56A in case there is substantial compliance with the conditions of Rule 56A and to pass the necessary orders.
-
1987 (8) TMI 337
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... CET was the correct item and not Item No. 23A (4). That case pertained to the period after 1-3-1979 when Item No. 23A underwent amendments. The imports covered by the present appeal are also after 1-3-1979. Following the Supreme Court rsquo s decision, we hold that the glass mirrors involved in these consignments were also classifiable under Item No. 68 CET. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 4. ensp The Registry, it appears, has erroneously asked the appellants to file supplementary fees on the basis that Collector (Appeals) had disposed of 6 appeals. We find from the record that though there were 6 matters, before the Assistant Collector and 6 orders were passed by him, the Collector (Appeals) entertained a single appeal against all the 6 orders and passed a single order. Therefore, there was no occasion to ask the appellants to file supplementary fees. We direct that the supplementary appeal fees so collected be refunded to the appellants.
-
1987 (8) TMI 334
Manufacture deemed to have taken place ... ... ... ... ..... name, character of use. rdquo In our view the decision does not help Shri Lakshmikumaran. Unlike the decision in the present case the product in question has a name and is not called waste or scrap. We have already said that its character or use is different from that of natural or associated gas. Therefore the decision to our mind is not applicable in the facts of the case. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion we find that manufacture has taken place and in view of the agreed position set out above Lean Gas would be classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile tariff. The appellants would be eligible to benefit of any exemption notification which may be lawfully available to them consequent to classification of goods under T.I.68. As a result classification under TI 11A is set aside and Lean Gas held classifiable under T.I. 68 with benefit of any exemption notification lawfully applicable. 8. The appeals are disposed of in the foregoing terms and partly allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 333
Switch - Electric Motor ... ... ... ... ..... d SDR for the Department has stated that assessment of goods done as electric motor part under Item 85.08 is obviously wrong and the correct assessment should be 85.18/27(1). 2. Taking into consideration the nature of the goods we agree with the learned SDR that the goods involved are assessable under 85.18/27(1). From the calculation sheets, we find, that the appellants have worked out the amount of the refund claimed after taking into reckoning the c.v. duty which has been paid. The order of the lower authority and the appellate authority does not deal with the refund of the c.v. duty. The learned Representative for the appellants is also not in a position to explain whether the ground of refund of c.v. duty was taken before the lower authority before whom the refund claim was filed. In view of this, we do not take notice of calculation sheet so far as it relates to the refund of the c.v. duty is concerned. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with consequential relief.
-
1987 (8) TMI 332
... ...
... ... ..... for failure to pay duty, to obtain a licence etc. He said that they have appealed because the Collector held them to be the manufacturers and so, liable to pay the Central Excise duty on the antimonial lead ingot, and the Central Excise are pressing them for payment. 3. We would like to record here that no action can be taken under the impugned order dated 2-2-1983 of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta for recovering any duty from M/s. Hindustan Cables Ltd. This company was not charged with any malfeasance, nor were any notices issued to them. The people charged were only M/s. Metal Sm E.L.T.ing. As no notice were issued to M/s. Hindustan Cables, they were not a party in the proceedings and the Collector can demand no duty from them. No attempt to recover any duty under this order can be legal and M/s. Hindustan Cables are under no obligation to pay. The Central Excise Department shall desist from recovering any duty from M/s. Hindustan Cables under the impugned order.
-
1987 (8) TMI 331
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... nts failed to cooperate with Revenue in adhering to the time chart set out above and comply with the requirement of this order, it will be open to the Collector of Central Excise to pass fresh orders in accordance with law if for non-cooperation of the appellants, it becomes in-practicable for Collector of Central Excise to comply with this order. In resorting, however, to this part of the order the Collector shall record his reasons for doing so. 8. The impugned order is set aside and remanded for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of observations directions set out above. 9. Bank Guarantee given by the Appellants shall be discharged by the amount of cash deposited by them with Revenue shall remain in deposit till adjudication orders in terms of this order are passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore. Cross objection is in the nature of comments on grounds of appeal. No orders on the same are necessary it is filed. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1987 (8) TMI 330
Refund claim not exceeding amount as in original claim ... ... ... ... ..... this item. 2. The learned SDR for the Department stated that in view of the material of Which the valve is made it is correctly assessable under T.1.84.61(2) CTA. 3. We observe that the ground now agitated before us is a fresh ground but in asmuch as the refund chaimed based on this does not exceed the amount claimed in the original claim we have allowed this plea being legal in nature to be taken on record. In view of the pleas made and in view of the facts of the case, we allow the appeal for claim of reassessment of item No. 1 of the invoice under T.I. 84.61 (2) CTA and order consequential relief. The appeal is partially allowed in the above terms.
-
1987 (8) TMI 329
Machinery accessories - Mandrel Internal Cooling System ... ... ... ... ..... stances, hold that extension of the benefit of the Notification No. 40/78 to the Additional Set of Tooling was wrong. We allow the Revenue rsquo s appeal in this regard. 17. The last item is spares. These spares consist of erection spares and maintenance spares. We note, from perusal of the invoice, that these spares have been separately listed and separate value was given. Their supply with the machine has not been shown to be compulsory. They being spares, there can be no question of compulsory supply. The Appellate Collector has already ordered that the spares should be assessed on individual merits and not at the highest rate. Considering the nature of the goods which are spares, we do not accept claims of Hathwa that these spares should also be considered as part of the machine and that they should be extended the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Cus. 18. As a result the Revenue rsquo s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. The appeal filed by Hathwa is rejected.
-
1987 (8) TMI 328
Rotary Milling Machine ... ... ... ... ..... e co-related to this reference. The DGTD, no doubt, is competent to advise only in respect of Import Control matters. All the same, the DGTD rsquo s organisation consists of experts with experience and in a situation where there is no other evidence explanation or definition the opinion of the DGTD can act as a guide without binding. Besides, in this matter the question before us is one of fact, namely, whether or not the imported machine is a Rotary Machine. The DGTD letter dated 19-9-1980 clearly says that it is. 10. There is nothing in the Notification to millitate against the view that the imported machine is a rotary machine. The description of other items is really not relevant to the interpretation of this particular item where, as mentioned earlier, no statutory or official guidance is given to decide what is a Rotary Machine and what is not. 11. In the circumstances, we accept the submissions made by the appellants and allow the appeal and order consequential relief.
-
1987 (8) TMI 327
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... or before 21-9-1982). 12. In paragraph 36, he declares that the eye bolts were cleared clandestinely and without Central Excise licence and that this attracted the extended time limit under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. But, surprisingly, he says ldquo I therefore, restrict the demand to Rs. 6,602.14 rsquo rsquo in respect of the said clearance of studs and eye bolts. If he finds suppression of production and clandestine clearance in respect of eye bolt, then at least in respect of these he should not restrict demand, but should have demanded duty for the full period it would go. Anyhow, I will not go further into it as I do not see what there is to be done about it, the Additional Collector having already passed his order. 13. The duty as demanded by the Additional Collector shall be paid. But, I am not able to see how the penalty was warranted when the adjudicator appears uncertain about the suppression and clandestine clearance. I remit the penalty in full.
-
1987 (8) TMI 326
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r of the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has filed this appeal. During the hearing of the appeal the learned JDR has stated that the case is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Tribunal in order No. 271 to 288/87-C dated 15-4-1987 in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. R.K. Industries and Others, in which it has been held that acrylic plastic scrap fall under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Following the said decision, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (8) TMI 325
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 62(1). Both sides had nothing more to say so far as the issue of basic duty is concerned. Following the ratio of the aforesaid earlier Tribunal order, we allow these two appeals in terms of that the basic duty should be re-assessed on the goods under Heading 84.62(1) and consequential refund should be granted to the appellants. 2. The appellants mention that so far as the question of Countervailing Duty was concerned they did not wish to press for it before this Tribunal. Since the assessment of Countervailing Duty being provisional, this issue was still open before the Assistant Collector. In the circumstances, we are not called upon to pass any order so far as the question of countervailing duty is concerned.
-
1987 (8) TMI 324
... ...
... ... ..... or proceeded on the assumption that the Assistant Collector had, on inquiry, found that the goods, in the form imported, were capable of being used as welding electrodes straightaway. On referring to the order-in-original, we find no such inquiry or observations made by the Assistant Collector. On the contrary, it is very clear from the Bill of Entry that the goods were neither coated with flux nor they were cut to size as Welding Electrodes generally are. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders. The additional customs duty should be charged with reference to Item No. 26AA(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff and consequential refund should be granted to the appellants. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1987 (8) TMI 323
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... for grant of necessary permission for the admission of these documents though Shri Gujral, the ld. Advocate, had made an oral request for the admission of this evidence after the conclusion of his arguments. We feel that the principles of natural justice require that the Revenue authorities should have confronted the appellant with the material available for enhancing the value. Accordingly, we hold that there is denial of principles of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the ld. Collector for re-adjudication in accordance with law. We further direct that the adjudicating authority will supply the copies of the evidence on which the Revenue wants to rely within one month of the receipt of this order and we further direct that the respondent will re-adjudicate the matter within three months from the date of the receipt of this order after granting personal hearing to the appellants. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1987 (8) TMI 322
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... under Tariff Item 68. There is a fallacy in this reasoning, such as it is. 10. Item 26A covers copper strips it does not cover bare copper strips, but just copper strips. If goods are copper strips, they will fall under this heading whether they are covered or not covered. Covering does not change the strips to non-strips it only turns them into covered strips. There appears to be a belief that only a covered strip can conduct electricity. There is no basis for this whatsoever. The copper strip does not conduct electricity because it is covered, but because it is copper. In any event, electrical conductivity has nothing to do with assessment of a copper strip under Item 26A. The heading for copper strip in Item 26A is specific for all copper strips, whether covered or not while Item 68 is not suitable when there is an Item like 26A in which the article can be assessed. 11. I, therefore, agree that the item, insulated copper strips, will not attract duty under Tariff Item 68.
-
1987 (8) TMI 321
Laundry Machine ... ... ... ... ..... imported in this case were of the industrial type as are commonly used in commercial laundry establishments. The learned S.D.R. stated very fairly that in view of the earlier decisions (Appeal No. C-1479/81-B2) (C.C., Bombay v. M/s. Indexpo International (P) Ltd.) in similar type of cases, he was not opposing this appeal. 2. Since the goods are indisputably of the industrial type and not of the domestic type, countervailing duty with reference to Item 33C would be incorrect. We allow the appeal and order that the countervailing duty should be reassessed with reference to Item 68 of the Tariff and consequential refund should be granted to the appellants.
-
1987 (8) TMI 306
Valuation - Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... ection 4(1) of the Central Excises Act, therefore, merely because the product is sold at a lower price to the Government and its Department does not enable the MRF to contend that the difference in price with reference to an ordinary dealer and the Government is a discount to the Government. The difference in price is not a discount but constitutes a normal price for the Government as a class of buyer and no deduction on this Head is admissible. 6. Taking into consideration the judgments of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court we remand the matter to the learned Assistant Collector with the directions that he should allow the deductions, namely (1) taxes (2) transport (3) interest on receivables (4) cost of distribution in selling the goods and discounts in the light of the above referred two judgments. It is further directed that the claim of the appellant shall be restricted to the original claim made by the appellant. In the result both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
........
|
