... ... ... ... ..... of course true, as the appellants state, that anomalous results would perhaps follow this view because while medium A, medium B and coarse cotton fabrics would be denied the benefit of exemption from handloom cess, fine and superfine varieties would be exempt from the handloom cess. We do not know whether this is an intended result or an inadvertent result but it is not for us to speculate. In this view of the matter, the coarse, medium A and medium B cotton fabrics which are the subject matter in the present dispute would be liable to handloom cess. The appellants are liable to pay the cess subject to our earlier finding that the demand notice can be enforced only for the period of six months preceding the date of issue. Insofar as the refund claim is concerned, no refund is due in view of our finding. The action of the lower authorities rejecting the refund claim is correct and is upheld. 5. The two appeals are disposed of in the light of the above findings and conclusions.
... ... ... ... ..... hich, apparently, would not be known to the trade or industry. In fact the identity of the product as wall paper is admitted. It is certainly design embossed, but it is essentially nothing but wall paper embossed with P.V.C. 12. The Collector (Appeals) has held that the product is high grade imitation leather for the manufacture of book covers and that it is widely used as water proof materials for curtains, aprons, rain-coats etc. Despite our repeated queries, the learned SDR has not been able to enlighten us as to what is the basis for the conclusions of the Collector of Customs (Appeals). There is neither any literature nor any technical or trade opinion on record which can justify these findings. Therefore, these have to be rejected. 13. In the light of our above finding the correct classification of the product under the Customs Tariff would be Item 48.01/21 and not 39.01/06. 14. We also hold that the impugned goods are duly covered by the Import licence. Appeal allowed.
... ... ... ... ..... earings were held to be classifiable under Heading 84.62(1) in the order cited before us. Following the earlier order we direct that the Water Pump Spindle Bearings imported by the appellants should be classified under the same Heading. 6. We have cited the arguments for and against the grant of higher amount of refund to the appellants. In our opinion, the Ld. Consultant for the appellants was wrong when he relied on Section 27(3) of the Customs Act. It has no application to the present circumstances. The judgment in Premier Tiles (supra) also has no application to the fact of the present case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Miles India is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. There cannot be order for refund without an application and such an application has to be made within six months from the date of payment. 7. In this view we order that appellants may be given consequential relief which should be limited to the amount of the refund claimed by them.
... ... ... ... ..... ittedly in this case they were not exempt from basic customs duty on the date the ships carrying the goods entered the territorial waters of India) duty liability would have to be worked out with reference to the date the goods were cleared from the warehouse. 4. ensp The facts of the present cases are identical to the facts of the case covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. Basic Customs duty was chargeable on the goods at the time of importation as well as at the time of clearances from the Bonded Warehouse. Although the goods were exempted from additional duty of customs at the time of importation, this exemption was not available when the goods were removed from the Bonded Warehouse. Therefore, in terms of the ratio laid down in the decision quoted above, additional duty was correctly chargeable on the goods in question. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Consequently, we uphold the impugned orders and dismiss these appeals.
... ... ... ... ..... the appellants only. As earlier noted, there is no finding that there is any arrangement for financial flowback from one firm to the other. On the other hand each has its own separate accounts as well as separate assessments by other public authorities such as Salestax and Income-tax authorities. In the circumstances the mere fact that the proprietor of one is closely related to the Directors of the other would not suffice to arrive at a finding that M/s. Naveen Enterprises was created merely as a ruse and a tax evasion device. 8. emsp It is only for the reason that M/s. Naveen Enterprises has no separate legal existence that the lower authorities have held that the clearances of both are to be considered as clearance of the appellants only. In view of our earlier conclusion in the preceding paragraphs we hold that on the facts as established the lower authorities were not correct in doing so. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and orders of lower authorities are set aside.
... ... ... ... ..... yderabad) could not be cleared without payment of duty. The so-called order of the Appellate Collector is a communication from the Superintendent, for Collector (Appeals), informing M/s. Foam Rubber Factory that the aforesaid communication of 18-6-1982 was only a communication of the order passed by the Collector and, therefore, the Appellate authority was this Tribunal. Evidently, this letter cannot be treated as an order against which an appeal lies. The communication dated 18-6-1982 of the Superintendent, Adjudication Branch, Hyderabad, also cannot be treated as an appealable order since it only seeks to convey an order which apparently the Collector had passed. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the purported appeal is not maintainable, which is, therefore, dismissed. 4. emsp M/s. Foam Rubber Factory may, if they wish, request the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad for a speaking order to be passed and take further steps as are open to them under the law. .
... ... ... ... ..... her notice and that in any event they would make an enquiry in this regard if, within a reasonable time, they had not received any order from the Tribunal in response to their request under the telegram. Admittedly they had not done so, till according to them, they made such enquiries in May, 1987. This would also indicate that the appellants have been entirely indifferent to their responsibilities in getting ready for the conduct of the appeal. As earlier mentioned the order dated 3-9-1986 as also the further order dated 27-10-1986 had been sent to the address given by the appellants for service and at which address they had admittedly received the notice for the hearing on 3-9-1986. In the circumstances we reject their statement that neither of the orders had been received by them. 6. In the result we hold that no ground has been made out to set aside the order of the dismissal of the appeal for default of appearance on 27-10-1986. This application is accordingly dismissed.
... ... ... ... ..... g 85.18/27(1) is correct. (ii) Condensers The appellants do not press their appeal for reclassification of this item. In the circumstances, we confirm the classification already made under Heading 85.18/27(2). (iii) Resistance These were classified under Heading 85.18/27(1). Here also, the appellants admit before us that they work on current below 400 volts and 20 amperes. As such the classification already made is correct. 2. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
... ... ... ... ..... liar to those. It is not the case of the Revenue nor it sounds to reason that machines other than those for treating metal and wood should be such that these should impart qualities to the treated materials similar to those in the case of metal and wood. The only rational way to look at this would be that the machines which are covered under the heading should be capable of treating the other materials with a view to bring about some qualitative change in these materials. Surface treatment is one such process. rdquo It is seen that enamelling of the wire is a treatment similar to lacquering and is also similar to tin plating inasmuch as by enamelling a qualitative change is brought about in the surface of the material as the enamelled material acquires by enamelling certain surface properties. Following the ratio of Tribunal rsquo s decision referred to supra, we hold that the machine is assessable under 84.59(2) CTA. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential relief.
... ... ... ... ..... hri Gopinath has also referred to a test report of the manufacturers. He further states that items are imported and in one item the percentage of nickel is 35.41 and in the other it is 36.0 and after totalling of the composition of the metals the residue portion comes to 41.62 and 42.31 . The percentage of ferrous is more than the percentage of nickel. Since the percentage of Ferrous metal is more the imported item falls under Heading 73.15(2). Shri Gopinath states that in view of his argument the imported item should fall under Heading 73.15(2). 4. We have heard Shri Gopinath, ld. SDR and have gone through records. We have also perused the test report and invoice and the Bill of Entry. The percentage of ferrous (iron) is 41.62 and 42.31 and as such the pre-dominate metal is iron and as such assessment falls under Heading 73.15(2) of CTA 1975. The goods do not fall under Heading Chapter 75. Accordingly we confirm the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed.
... ... ... ... ..... at the machine answered to this description by virtue of its functions of precise automatic guiding of the wire being there in the design of the machine. We observe that the learned representative of the appellants has clarified that the machine is automatic to the extent of feeding of the wire and rest of the functions were not automatic. The machine therefore, can be considered as only semiautomatic. This apart, the appellants have not been able to show that the coils wound on this machine are such which are used in the electronic industry only by virtue of their rating and size etc. They have also not been able to show that, there is anything in the design of the machine which makes the machine more useful for electronic industry. In view of the above, we find no merits in the appellants rsquo claim and we hold that the lower authorities have correctly held the machine as not covered by the Notification 118/80 for the benefit of exemption. We, therefore, reject the appeal.
... ... ... ... ..... ariff, fall for classification under Tariff Item 11A as claimed by Revenue and not Tariff Item 68 ibid as claimed by the respondent-manufacturer. In the written submissions, the respondents also refers to this decision but argues that in taking the earlier decision, the Tribunal has not given enough weightage to their argument about origin of micro crystal and its consequent effect on classification. We do not think that the argument now advanced would induce us to depart from our earlier decision. Following the same, we hold the product micro crystal as properly classifiable for the purposes of additional duty of customs under the erstwhile Tariff Item 11A as claimed by the appellant and not Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the respondents. We therefore, modify the impugned order and restore the classification for the purposes done by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief to the appellant and liability on the respondent.
... ... ... ... ..... uced any evidence to show that the imported tapes are the products of polymerisation or co-polymerisation. Tariff Heading 39.01/06 provides for polymerisation or co-polymerisation products, one of which is polyvinyl chloride. The description against Item 6 of the notification is similar to that of Tariff Heading 39.01/06. The goods Were assessed under Tariff Heading 39.01/06. Having assessed the goods under this Tariff Heading, it is not justified, for the purpose of extending the benefit of exemption notification, to raise a doubt as to whether the goods are actually polymerisation or co-polymerisation products. Having accepted the goods as polymerisation/co-polymerisation products for the purpose of classification under Heading 39.01/06 denial of benefit of notification is not justified, particularly when the test report of the sample has shown that the goods are composed of Polyvinyl chloride. . 5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
... ... ... ... ..... acaroni Paste Mixing Machine each. The capacity of the machine was 50 kgs. in the case of appeal No. C-1560 and 35 kgs. in the case of appeal No. C-1561. Both the machines work on 440 volts electric current. The point of dispute is whether additional customs duty should be charged on these machines with reference to Item 53C of the Central Excise Tariff or Item 68 thereof. 3. Item 33C of the Central Excise Tariff covers Domestic Electrical Appliances. These were defined in the Tariff to mean such electrical appliances as were normally used in the household though similar appliance may also be used in hotels, restaurants, hostels etc. The voltage and the capacity of the two machines clearly establish that these were commercial machines and were not of the type which are used in the household for making biscuits. In the circumstances, we uphold the impugned order-in-appeal and dismiss both the appeals. The two show cause notices issued by the Government of India are discharged.
... ... ... ... ..... rother. 8. The previous case decided by the Tribunal under its Order No. B-620/83, dated 2.7.1983 (1984 ECR 1225) related to identical goods imported by the same appellants. The arguments now advanced by the learned consultant of the appellants are also practically the same as those advanced on their behalf in the previous case however, reliance is now placed on the effect of Section Note 1(f) to Section XVI, which was not mentioned or not stressed in the previous case. While this argument could have some relevance, the fact remains that there is a considered decision of the Tribunal in an identical case relating to the same appellants, which they have not challenged before the Supreme Court and which must therefore be deemed to have been accepted by them. I agree with the conclusion of my learned brother Shri Harish Chander that the appeal should be rejected. (S. Venkatesan) President I agree with the order of the Ld. President. The appeal is rejected. (I.J. Rao) Member (T)
... ... ... ... ..... by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The machine purchased by the appellants was for the modernisation of the existing plant. It was neither for initial setting up nor for expansion and as such the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Project Import. We rely on the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad reported in 1983 E.L.T. 829 (CEGAT) 1983 ECR 570-D which was upheld by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. During the course of arguments Shri Venkatraman fairly conceded that he does not dispute the classification under Heading 84.37(2) of CTA, 1975 in view of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kapoor and Company v. Collector of Customs, Bombay vide Order No. 266/85-D, dated 29-11-1985 in appeal No. 112/79-B2. The appeal is dismissed.
... ... ... ... ..... art of an instrument. The learned S.D.R. for the department concedes that the issue could have been examined in the light of whether bellows was part of instrument and stated that the Collector (Appeals) should have considered the assessment in the light of Note (2) to Chapter 90 of CTA. He has stated that being a part of measuring instrument the goods will be assessable under heading 90.29(1) read with 90.24(1). 3. We observe that the decision taken by the Collector (Appeals) was not correct and in view of the pleas made before us we hold that the bellows are to be assessed under heading 90.29(1) read with 90.24(1). Appeal allowed accordingly with consequential relief.
... ... ... ... ..... since the appellants had not asked for a personal hearing the Collector had not held a personal hearing. But we take note of the fact that the documents for the omission to produce which refund claim was being rejected are such that they would be available with the Department also. In the circumstances we feel that it would be in the interests of justice if the appellants were permitted to produce these documents at least hereafter so that their refund claim may be considered on its merits and disposed of. 5. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside remitting the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo adjudication after allowing the appellants an opportunity to produce such documents as are fe.l.t. necessary. 6. Shri Seth submits that die refund claim being old the matter may be required to be disposed of expeditiously. We direct that the readjudication should be completed within 4 months after the receipt of this order.
... ... ... ... ..... ts that while the appellants in their application to the Assistant Collector submitted that the machinery imported was for substantial expansion the D.G.T.D. has certified that the machinery is for the initial setting up. The learned S.D.R. submits that the matter may be remanded to the Assistant Collector for verification of the correct position. 4. We have considered the arguments and facts. Following our earlier decisions cited by the appellants we accept that the letter of recommendation from the D.G.T.D. was not a mandatory requirement. The application for registration should not have been rejected for want of such recommendation. We further note that the goods would be entitled to Project Import concession whether they are for substantial expansion or for initial setting up of the unit as recorded by the D.G.T.D. Therefore, no purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector. We allow the appeal and order consequential refund to the appellants.
... ... ... ... ..... in infosys Consultant Private Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1987 (29) E.L.T. 642 Tribunal . 3. We have considered the arguments of both sides and have perused our earlier judgment cited by the ld. Advocate. The judgment cited followed an earlier judgment of the Tribunal in EM Electronics (EM Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Order No. 421 of 87-B2, dated 23-8-1987). We have perused that order also and note that the ld. SDR rsquo s arguments were rejected in that appeal. 4. Following the ratio of the earlier judgments of the Tribunal we reject Shri J. Gopinath rsquo s arguments and hold that the ratio of the judgment should be applied to the present appeal also. We order that Winchester Drives imported by the appellants should be extended the benefit of Notification 237 of 1983 and that consequential relief should be granted to them by way of either non-enforcement of the demand or refund if the differential duty had been paid. We allow this appeal in these terms.
