|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 242 Records
-
1987 (9) TMI 199 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Benefit of grant of licence cannot be given to an existing partner of a firm ... ... ... ... ..... The said Rule will come into operation only after the appellant leaves the partnership firm and takes out an application within a period of 60 days subject to fulfilling the other requirements envisaged thereunder. When a person admittedly is continuing as a partner in a licensed firm, we are at a loss to understand as to how in the same breath he can putforth a plea that he was an employee in a licensed firm for a period of 5 years, moreso has left the employment so as to seek the grant of a licence under the special category in terms of Rule 2(f) proviso (f) of the Rules. On the admitted facts the appellant is not covered either by Rule 2(f) proviso (e) or (f) referred to supra. Therefore, the rejection of the appellant rsquo s application for the grant of a gold dealer rsquo s licence is well founded in law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4. We would like to make it clear that it is open to the appellant to take an application for grant of a fresh licence as per law.
-
1987 (9) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand invoking extended time limit justified ... ... ... ... ..... y to duty cannot be in doubt. 11. The question next arises whether demand for duty is time barred. We observe that the appellants admit that they did not declare to the department that they were using white pulp board. Their only defense is that such board was used only to extent of 3 and that they were under an obligation to declare only the major raw materials. This plea, again, has to be rejected. When the appellants were claiming an exemption which was conditional on their using specified inputs, and they were not only using other inputs also, but neither declaring this to the department nor paying duty, then clearly they are guilty of suppression of facts with the intention to evade duty by claiming exemption under a notification to which they were not entitled. The argument as regards the small percentage of such inadmissible inputs is of no avail at all. 12. In the light of our foregoing findings both the demand for duty and the penalty is upheld. 13. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cal one. In the absence of any contention to the contrary, we have to accept the respondents plea. Looking at the matter from other angle as pleaded by the respondents it is seen that in terms of notification in addition to the specified materials 1/3rd of other materials can also be added for the manufacture of mill board. The respondents have cited the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court judgment in which the Hon rsquo ble High Court has held that the proviso under which the use of 1/3rd of other material by weight is permissible is applicable both for mill board and straw board. No judgment to the contrary has been brought to our notice in this regard. In view of specific findings of the Hon rsquo ble High Court and the fact that respondents use of straw and jute is not more than 1/3rd weight of the weight of other material, the benefit of the notification would be available to them. In view of the above, we find no merit in the plea of the Department and reject the appeal.
-
1987 (9) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption available to paper produced in a mill ... ... ... ... ..... ds answering to the general description of the goods manufactured in that category of mill. In the case of paper mill, paper and board are manufactured therein. In case there is one establishment in which there is a paper plant and also a different plant for making board than the whole setup has to be taken as one mill. It is significant to note that in the present case both the plants function under the same management and are in the same campus. In view of this we hold that the two plants are part of the same mill and therefore for the purpose of the notification the installed capacity of the two has to be clubbed. In this view of the matter, therefore, we uphold order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) so far as it relates to the rate at which the benefit of the notification is available to the appellants. In view of what we have stated above, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected and so also of the appellants and the orders of the Collector (Appeals) are upheld.
-
1987 (9) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... t considerable amount is involved and the decision would have adverse effect. The particulars of the amount involved have not been given though for this application it does not appear relevant to us. As for the decision having wider ramifications, we have not been able to appreciate this argument because even according to the Collector, the decision is based on the ratio of Tribunal rsquo s decision in Bakelite Hylam rsquo s case. The plea as to ramification would equally apply to the Tribunal decision which could be and must have been challenged by Revenue before Supreme Court. To us, however, this consideration does not appear relevant for condoning the inordinate delay. 12. We find that the applicant has failed to make out sufficient cause justifying condonation of delay of the order of 9 months. We reject the application for condonation of delay. As a consequence, the appeal No. 1057/87 in respect of which the application is made, stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
-
1987 (9) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Advertisement and publicity charges ... ... ... ... ..... price and the amount of the money value of any additional consideration following directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee. rdquo According to his own finding, the Assistant Collector was not entitled to disallow the entire 27.5 discount but only to add the money value of the additional consideration for the sale. The legal position that cost of advertisement and publicity is includible in the assessable value of the goods has been stated clearly in the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyres International Limited 1983 E.L.T. (14) 1896 (S.C.) - Para 49 . 6. No other point was pressed before us by either side. 7. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) and allow this appeal in terms that the Assistant Collector shall determine the money value of the additional consideration for the sale, add only that much to the assessable value of the goods and revise the demand for short levy accordingly.
-
1987 (9) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Patent or Proprietary Medicines ... ... ... ... ..... claim exemption from licensing control. Merely because Central Excise officers were generally visiting the appellants factory would not mean that they had knowledge of the medicines and labels manufactured by the appellants. In absence of anything to show that the labels had been specifically brought to the notice of the Central Excise officers visiting the appellants factory on the basis of their general visit to the appellants factory the appellants cannot be granted the benefit of shorter limitation of six months in view of the fact that the appellants had not filed the required declaration claiming exemption from licensing control. In our view the material on record is not sufficient to impute knowledge to the Central Excise authorities of the appellants manufacturing activity of the medicine in question. Appellants claim in respect of shorter limitation of six months being applied against them is hereby rejected. 20. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electric lighting finings ... ... ... ... ..... ing so far as the combination switches and the horn-dipper switches are concerned. But it appears to me that the position may not be the same so far as the flasher switch is concerned. 20. That switch has only one function i.e. to put on the flasher on bulb which blinks on and off indicating the direction of which the driver intends to turn the vehicle. If a lighting switch is defined as one to switch on a light and thus provide illumination, this flasher bulb does appear to me to perform that function. It illuminates a particular part of the body of the vehicle and thus attracts attention (by blinking) so as to communicate the necessary information to illuminate is to shed light. The flasher bulb does shed light on a particular part of the motor-vehicle. 21. But then we have the decision of the Bombay High Court (reported subsequent to the hearing) in 1987 Vol. 31 E.L.T. 369. In view of the said decision I concur with the order of Shri Anand in respect of all three switches.
-
1987 (9) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... 9. emsp We may also refer in this connection to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikrant Tyres 1985 (21) E.L.T. 620 in which it was held (dealing with a case under Notification No. 201/79 itself) that even when an assessee claimed that he could not correlate the quantum of inputs that went towards the manufacture of excisable goods and free goods, the Department should make an attempt to grant relief by working out the quantum on pro rata basis after calling for the necessary information. 10. emsp In view of the above discussion we hold that the order of the Central Board dated 2.5.1981 was proper and does not require any interference. Excise Appeal No. 1413/81-D is accordingly dismissed and the notice dated 21.12.1981 is discharged. Excise Appeal Nos. 205/81 and 787/83 are allowed and orders of the lower authorities are set aside, the matters being remitted to the Assistant Collectors concerned for consideration afresh of the refund claims in terms of this order.
-
1987 (9) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... observe that for condoning any delay in filing the appeal a cause must be first shown to exist before it can be considered sufficient for the purpose of condoning the delay. From the information furnished before us and the pleas on record we are constrained to observe that no basis has been laid that there was any cause as pleaded for condonation of the delay. All that can be said is that there has been inept handling of the matter in the Collector rsquo s office and an attempt has been made to explain the delay on non-existent reasons. In the present case, we observe the appellants have not substantiated the reasons given for the condonation of delay. We, therefore, hold that the delay in the present case was more on account of lack of diligence on the part of the Departmental Authorities and in the absence of any valid reasons, we reject their application for condonation of delay. Inasmuch as the delay has not been condoned, the appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable.
-
1987 (9) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ce would not fall under Item No. 68, C.E.T., is, in our opinion, misplaced. The cited case pertains to Item No. 22F, C.E.T., which at the material time, covered ldquo manufactures containing mineral fibres and yarn rdquo which was interpreted by the Tribunal to cover a product containing 28.39 asbestos, rejecting the contention that the mineral fibre content should be over 50 . In the present case, however, Item No. 67, CET, does not contain any explanation as in the case of Item No. 22F. In any event, it is not the department rsquo s case that the goods contained less than 50 carbon. What matters is how the goods are recognised whether as carbon or graphite. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the carbon rods imported by the appellants were assessable to additional duty of customs equal to the excise duty leviable under Item No. 68, CET. We set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow these appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1987 (9) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... g its other uses. He could not do so and conceded that there was no specific feature in the microscope which set it apart for its use in the electronic industry. 4. emsp We observe that so far as Notification 118/80 is concerned, it was apparently issued for giving a fillip to the electronic industry and a large range of machines and equipments are covered thereunder. Microscopes figure at Sl. No. 37 of the table to the Notification. The benefit of the Notification, as it is worded, is available in respect of machinery and equipments as could be shown to have been designed for the electronic industry. What is required to be shown for the purpose of availing of the benefit of the exemption notification is that, there is some feature which renders the machinery and equipment more useful in the electronic industry. In the present case, the appellants have not been able to show that this is so. In view of this, we find no merit in the appellants rsquo claim and reject the appeal.
-
1987 (9) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e 1-3-1979 entry 22F. (the present case pertains to post 1-3-1979 entry), and the test of predominance of mineral fibres or yarn was absent. Prior to 1-3-1979, the subject goods were being classified under Item 15A(2) C.E.T. However, in view of Explanation II to Item 15A inserted by the Finance Act of 1979 by virtue of which insulators and insulating fittings were excluded from the item, the goods no longer fell under Item 15A(2). The appellants thereupon claimed classification of the goods under Item No. 68 CET. This item being a residuary one, all the other items of the tariff must be gone through and ruled out before the subject goods could be placed under . that item. In the light of the foregoing discussion, Iten No. 22F is more specific to cover the goods and unlike Item No. l5A(2) C.R.T., Item No. 22F does not exclude from its purview insulators or insulating fittings. 12. The result is that the goods in dispute fall under Item No. 22F C.E.T. The appeal is dismissed. -
-
1987 (9) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... der the Act is concerned, provides a period of limitation of six months. No claim for refund can be made under that provision unless the claim is made within six months. rdquo 11. Hence on a careful consideration of the submissions of Shri Gulati, we hold that so far as this Tribunal is concerned, which functions under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, the refund claim will have to be dealt with and disposed of (as had been done by the lower authorities) with reference to the period of limitation prescribed under the Act (or the earlier Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules) and that this Tribunal cannot press into service the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, treating the claim as arising for recovery of money paid under mistake of law and hence governed by Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. We, therefore, hold that the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the refund claim as barred by time. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Fluid Bed Tea Drier. ... ... ... ... ..... ls of the machine come into existence before clearance of the same, the question of excluding the value of bought out duty paid term does not arise as the value of the machines as a whole has to be taken into reckoning for excise purposes. However, in case the bought out motor etc. is not fitted onto the machine, the cost of the same should be deleted from the sale price for arriving at the assessable value. Ths commissioning charges and any other post clearance charges will have to be excluded under the law. As mentioned earlier, since the facts in relation to all the machines cleared have not been placed before us and some verifications regarding the nature of the machine cleared has to be done, we find it a fit case for remand. We, therefore, direct the lower authority to adjudicate the case de-novo in the light of our findings above after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence. The appeal is therefore, allowed by remand of the above terms.
-
1987 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Corrugated board cartons made out of duty paid kraft paper ... ... ... ... ..... t to deny the benefit to the respondents for the reason that out of kraft paper an identifiable new Product emerged at the intermediate stage during the manufacturing process of carton and the same is considered dutiable by them. Tribunal in a number of decisions in the context of Notification No. 24/63-C.E. in the case of use of specified petroleum products for the manufacture of fertilizer had that so long as use of the specified input is in relation to the end-product notwithstanding the fact that the input resulted in the production of identifiable intermediary product, the benefit of the exemption continues to be available (Order No. 182-188-C, dated 11.2.1987 in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation). In view of the above, we hold that the cartons manufactured by the respondents are eligible for the benefit of the notification as claimed by respondents and allowed by the Collector (Appeals). 10. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 163 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Import replenishment claim ... ... ... ... ..... petitions had to be filed, because 9 licences were issued by the authorities with the restrictions aforesaid. But all of them pertain to the same period and are all identically situated. Therefore, the direction issued herein above, will apply to all the licences already issued. The licences already issued shall be corrected and reissued in accordance with the above direction. 18. Mr. Srinivasa Murthy lastly requests that the licences to be now issued in pursuance of this Court rsquo s direction, should be revalidated for a period of 12 months, instead of 6 months. While we do not wish to express any opinion on this request, the authorities shall examine the same, and, if it is permissible to revalidate the licence for a period more than six months in accordance with 1980-81 import policy, the authorities shall consider the said request in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case. The directions contained herein shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible.
-
1987 (9) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal against communication letter ... ... ... ... ..... aim, are to be ignored. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in their decision reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) - Miles India Limited v. The Assistant Collector of Customs. After the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that the time-limit prescribed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act 1962 and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944/Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act are mandatory provisions and the same cannot be relaxed by the statutory authorities acting under the aforesaid statutes. We do not find any reason for taking a different view. The learned advocate rsquo s plea that the provisions of the Limitation Act should be applicable in this case, is, therefore, rejected. 9. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and as such the same are upheld and the appeal filed before us is dismissed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... oils, resins, etc. Oxford Dictionary ldquo coloured varnish of shellac dissolved in alcohol used esp. as coating for brass, sap of - tree (Rhu vernicifera) taking hard polish and used to varnish wood etc synthetic liquid that dries to form protective film substance sprayed on hair to keep it in place. 2. coat with lacquer, (f. obs. F. lacre, sealing-wax, f. unexpl. var of Port laca Lag) rdquo From the above, it is seen that the lacquering does bring about a qualitative change in the surface of the material. It is seen that the lacquering can be done on various surfaces and even metal and wood. In this view of the matter, the machine imported has to be held to be similar to those for the treatment of metals and wood. In view of the above, we hold the machine is assessable under 84.59(2)CTA. In view of this, we do not find it necessary to deal with the other arguments put forth by the respondents. We, therefore, find no merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and dismiss the same.
-
1987 (9) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Shortage of gold ornaments found in shop of licensed gold dealer ... ... ... ... ..... ent rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Dedhia jewellers v. Collector of Customs, 1984 (18) E.L.T. 396 (Trib.) supra does not help the appellants as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sharma and Co. v. Income Tax Commissioner, supra the Full Bench decision of the P and H High Court rendered in the case of Nandlal Sohanlal v. The Income Tax Commissioner, supra and the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Chief Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Raj Kishan, supra, though available were not brought to the notice of the Bench when it decided the case on 11-6-1984. 14. emsp The only other contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the penalty was on excessive side has also no substance. No mitigating circumstance or circumstances were pointed out for reducing the amount of penalty. 15. In the light of the foregoing discussions, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
............
|
