|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 242 Records
-
1987 (9) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... manufacture and the liability to duty would not arise. 7. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the Central Excise Act has nowhere indicated that the goods would not include immovable property. This contention is not tenable. Central Excise Act defines ldquo excisable goods rdquo . The term ldquo goods rdquo has not been defined under the Central Excise Act. The words ldquo movable property rdquo and ldquo immovable property rdquo have been defined under the General Clauses Act. A study of the definitions would clearly indicate that ldquo immovable property rdquo cannot be treated as ldquo goods rdquo . Since the fabricated structures cannot be called as ldquo goods rdquo , and are not articles which could ordinarily come to the market for being bought and sold, it would certainly exclude ldquo immovable property rdquo . Hence we hold that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. As no relief is prayed for in the cross objections, it is also closed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ters are squarely covered by the earlier orders of the Tribunal namely - Order No. 1044 to 1057/86-B2 1987 (28) E.L.T. (93) Tribunal . 3. In all these appeals Silicon Diffused Chips were imported. The question that arises in all these appeals is whether Silicon Diffused Chips are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 172/77-Cus. There is no dispute regarding the basic classification of the chips which was done under Heading 85.18/27(1) CTA. 4. Shri Saha, JDR agreed that in all the present appeals the same issue arises as was decided in M/s. Keltron Power Devices Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Cochin cited by the ld. Consultant for the Appellants. We have perused the documents and also went to the earlier orders of the Tribunal cited by the ld. Consultant. We agree that the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s earlier order applies to the present appeals. 5. In the circumstances, following our earlier orders, we allow these 23 appeals, and consequential refund should be granted.
-
1987 (9) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... and the Chapter by virtue of this note. He also invited our attention to Note 1(g) to the same section and submitted that the goods seem to be chains and if they are chains they would be parts of general use. 4. We have considered arguments of both sides. Since the goods are described as ldquo Conveyor BE.L.T.s rdquo there is no question of treating them as chains in order to consider classification under Heading 73.29. 5. Section Note 1(h) is to the effect that Chapter 84 does not cover endless bE.L.T.s of metal wire or strip. The present goods being Conveyor BE.L.T.s should be considered to be endless bE.L.T.s. Therefore, it appears to us that Note 1(h) excludes the imported goods from the scope of Section XVI of Chapter 84. The goods made of metal (Iron or steel) can alternatively be classified only under Heading 73.33/40. The imported goods cannot be considered as bE.L.T. conveyors in the context of the wording used under Heading 84.22. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (9) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... oods of this Section (a) joints, washers and the like (classified according to their constituent material or in Heading No. 84.64) So far as the plea for consideration of assessment under Item 84.64 is concerned, we observe that this heading reads as under ldquo Gaskets and similar joints of metal sheeting combined with other material (for example, asbestos, fE.L.T. and paper board) or of laminated metal foil sets or assortments of gaskets and similar joints, dissimilar in composition, for engines, pipes, tubes, and the like put up in pouches, envelopes or similar packings. rdquo The appellants have not shown as to how the goods imported are eligible for classification under T.1.84.64 which covers only certain specified categories of products. Goods imported are made out of plastic and T.I. 84.64 does not cover these as seen from the description of the goods set out under this heading. In view of the above, we find no merits in the appellants rsquo plea and reject the appeal.
-
1987 (9) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ould lie to the Collector against the orders of the Additional Collector, the appellants filed the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the period prescribed. However, as there been a bona fide mistake of procedure, we are of opinion that there is sufficient ground to condone the delay for filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. However, we find that the appellants have not deposited the duty amount nor have they filed any application for waiver of pre-deposit. In the circumstances, the appeal is rejected on the ground of failure to deposit the duty amount.
-
1987 (9) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... ion in accordance with law. 3. The learned representative of the department stated that since a case had been made out to show violation of principles of natural justice, he would have no objection to the appellants rsquo prayer for waiver of pre-deposit and remand of the matter for fresh adjudication being granted. 4. On careful consideration, we agree with the appellants. There has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. Even before the inspection of the records was over and a reply to the show cause notice could be sent, the Collector went ahead and adjudicated the matter ex-parte. Such an order cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, we waive the condition of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and in view of the violation of principles of natural justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 5. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1987 (9) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Printed cartons ... ... ... ... ..... aid on printed cartons under Item No. 68 GET during the period of six months preceding 8.2.78 in accordance with the limitation under Rule 11 as it stood at the material time. The asses-see would also be entitled to refund of duty paid during the period from 9.2.77 to 6.8,77 in accordance with the limitation in Rule 11 at the material time. This is In accordance with the ratio of the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Universal Drinks Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1984 (18) E.L.T. 207, followed by this Tribunal in the case of Nagarjuna Steals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad 1985 (21) E.L.T. 854. The payments of duty oh and after 20.1.78 having been made under protest, would naturally not be barred by limitation. The claim for refund for the period on and after 20-1-78 covered by the refund claim dated 1-3-79 would, therefore, not be barred by limitation. 31. Appeal No. 1350/81-D is thus partly allowed as discussed above and, for the rest, dismissed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 230 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prosecution - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... till that date, i.e., the date of the order had been ldquo sufficiently and properly explained rdquo . He, therefore, repelled the submission of Mr. Sibal that the complaint had been filed ldquo belatedly and that it was an abuse of the process of the Court rdquo . There can possibly be no going back on these findings. Further, so far as the time lag subsequent to the passing of this order is concerned, not only the proceedings in the trial Court remained stayed by the order of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, but the petitioners themselves appear to be the cause of it. It is the conceded position that they have notso far chosen to put in appearance before the trial Court. In the face of this factual position, how can they reasonably complain of any delay in the completion of the proceedings against them. 6. For the foregoing reasons I am of the considered view that the petitioners have no case either in law or on facts. These petitions thus must fail and are dismissed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 227 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... titioners had filed a petition in the Supreme Court which had been withdrawn and that there was no reference in this petition to those proceedings. Mr. Sethna also points out that the goods had arrived in Kandla, the Bill of Entry was filed in Kandla, the address of the petitioners on the Bill of Entry and in the petition is a Delhi address, the petitioners admittedly have their Head Office in Delhi and except for a statement to the following effect ldquo The impact and the consequence of wrongful withholding of clearance by the respondents of the goods at Bombay rdquo , there is no averment and not shown as to how the impact and consequences are felt in Bombay. Mr. Sethna rightly submits that the Court in any event would not have jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, Mr. Sethna is right that the petitioners cannot be allowed to simplicitor withdraw the petition. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. The petitioners will pay costs of this petition to the respondents.
-
1987 (9) TMI 226 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Canalised Item ... ... ... ... ..... dingly the writ petition succeeds. There will be writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to issue lsquo No Objection Certificate rsquo in the form prescribed in Appendix IV-B of the Hand Book of Import and Export Procedure, 1985-88 entitling the petitioners for grant of import licence in the name of the petitioner No. 1 for direct import of 7700 MT of Re-rollable Scrap as the petitioner is entitled to import as was permissible to be imposed as on 14th July, 1986 on the basis of its registered requirements within a period of 10 days from the date of communication of this order and the respondent No. 3 and 5 are also directed to issue the running import licence according in the name of petitioner No. 1 for the direct import of 7700 MT of Re-rollable Scrap as per policy imposed as on 11th July, 1986. Such Import Licence should be issued within 32 months from today. The rule is made absolute to the extend indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (9) TMI 225 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... of Chapter IV-B to Bhuj town but then the proper authority to consider this question is the adjudicating authority and further it is necessary that there should be proper evidence for final determination of this question. I, therefore, accept Shri Parikh rsquo s contention that the matter should be remanded to the Addl. Collector for consideration afresh. 18. In the result, I allow all these appeals, set aside the order of confiscation made under Section 113(c) but remand all the matters to the Additional Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad for determination afresh as to the liability of the seized silver for confiscation under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence before the Additional Collector. The Addl. Collector shall determine the question as to the applicability of Chapter IV-B and other questions in the light of the observations contained in this order and thereafter pass such order as he consider fit but in accordance with law.
-
1987 (9) TMI 224 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... of the packages transported in the taxi. Just because the law provides that the vehicle can be confiscated for the carriage of contraband goods there is no duty cast to confiscate if the circumstances did not warrant such confiscation. 9. The above apart, under the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 115, the adjudicating authority is required to give an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation where a conveyance used for the carriage of smuggled goods was a conveyance used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire. The taxi is a conveyance used for carriage of passengers for hire. Therefore, even I were to accept (which I cannot accept) the finding of the Additional Collector, his order of absolute confiscation cannot be upheld as the same is against the clear provisions of the Customs Act, and is wholly illegal. 10. On consideration of all the aspects, I allow this appeal and set aside the order of confiscation and direct that the taxi be released to the appellant.
-
1987 (9) TMI 223 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Non-maintenance of accounts ... ... ... ... ..... ed the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. The Collector could pass any penalty on the gold dealer. But he cannot order confiscation of the gold belonging to other persons for the contravention of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act by the gold dealer. Since the confiscation in the instant case was of the gold belonging to the persons, other than the gold dealer and who have not contravened any of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act or shown to be colluded with the gold dealer, their gold cannot be ordered to be confiscated. I, therefore, set aside the order of confiscation of the seized gold. Setting aside of the confiscation results in setting aside the fine in lieu of confiscation. The appellants be granted consequential relief. 14. In the result this appeal is allowed in part. The order of confiscation .as well as the fine levied in lieu of confiscation are set aside. The appellants be granted consequential relief. The penalty imposed on the firm is confirmed.
-
1987 (9) TMI 222 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Goods imported although can be used for measuring thickness of lens are not ophthalmic equipment/instrument
-
1987 (9) TMI 221 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Spares - Definition ... ... ... ... ..... imported cannot be considered as a part of the plant or machinery and, therefore, the contention of Shri Gandhi that the imported goods are required for maintenance and, therefore, they should be treated as spares is rather difficult to accept. Reference to sub-para (5) of para 204 of the Hand Book by Shri Gandhi has no relevance at all. That sub-para only provides if spares are not specifically included in Appendices 3 and 5, it could be imported as a permissible spare. The import is not a pursuance of any licence granted. Therefore, there is no scope to invoke Appendices 3 and 5. Though I accept Shri Gandhi rsquo s contention that the goods imported could not be ldquo consumables rdquo within the meaning of that expression given in the policy. I am unable to accept his contention that the goods qualify as spares within the meaning of that expression or the spare permitted to be imported under OGL. I, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and accordingly I reject the same.
-
1987 (9) TMI 220 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Baggage - Prohibited goods ... ... ... ... ..... passenger which are dutiable or prohibited for import provided a true declaration had been made under Section 77. The Bench had also considered the contention regarding the bonafide baggage and had observed the bonafide baggage comes into picture only for the purpose of claiming free allowance in terms of the baggage rules and not for the purpose of interpreting Section 80. From the order of the Appellate Collector in another case referred to above also indicate that the customs authorities were allowing re-export when they were satisfied about the bonafide even in the absence of a true declaration. Even if I were to accept the contention of the authorities below that the gold chain was in crude form the passenger will be entitled to the benefit of Section 80 since she had made a true declaration. I, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and direct that the appellant be allowed to re-export the confiscated gold chain and the locket.
-
1987 (9) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Food products - ‘All kinds of food products’ ... ... ... ... ..... paration. It was treated as a veberage and not food. In our opinion spices are neither food products nor food preparations. They may be used in preparation of human food for the sake of giving flavour and taste to it. This item, therefore, will not be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975. rdquo The appellants have not brought to our notice any other contrary judgment in the context of Notification No. 55/75. We are in respectful agreement with the rationale of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court and hold that vinegar is not covered by the Notification No. 55/75. So far as one demand which is conceded by departmental representative to be beyond time, we hold the same is not maintainable in law as we find no basis for invoking the longer time limit. So far as other demand is concerned, the same has been correctly raised and confirmed and we, therefore, partially allow the appeal in the above terms, with consequential relief.
-
1987 (9) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... like a motor, works like a motor, and fulfils a man rsquo s need for a motor to crank his car engine. The motors head (Item 30) is the most close-fitting item of all possible contenders. Item 34A would not have taken it because it excluded all motor vehicle parts specified elsewhere. With its amendment in 1979, it shed the role even of a possible claimant. And Item 68 is an item that never stirs out like a spider, it just sits in its web and waits for a fly to fall or blunder into it. It does not contest nor does it enter the list. For this reason, it never knows what may form its next meal - it may be a machine it may be a chemical it may be an aeroplane. Its receipts are all handouts - things nobody wants things nobody will accept. But as long as a thing can find a haven, a sanctuary ldquo elsewhere rdquo , it will not, cannot, Enter 68. 30. It is not possible to support assessment of the self-starter motor under Item 68. Assessment under Item 30 is correct. In confirm it.
-
1987 (9) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rebate for excess production of sugar ... ... ... ... ..... Deshmukh further contends that if Notification No. 193/82 is not considered to have retrospective effect, then special Excise duty could not be levied and collected on sugar between 11-5-1982 when Finance Bill, 1982, became an Act and 11-6-1982 when Notification No. 193/82 invoking, inter alia, the provisions of Section 50(4) of the Finance Act, 1982, was issued. This, according to Shri Deshmukh, would be a pointer to the retrospectivity of Clause 4 as inserted on 11-6-1982. No arguments were, however, adduced to support this point and the issue is not before us and, therefore, we would not like to enter into an academic disputation on the point made about special Excise duty. Nor are we able to detect any indication in the relevant portion of Notification No. 193/82 amendment (a) to Notification No. 132/82 as to the retrospectivity of Clause 4 as inserted on 11-6-1982. 11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the present appeal.
-
1987 (9) TMI 200 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Rectification of error apparent from the records ... ... ... ... ..... Act. In this view of the matter, I modify the impugned order of the Tribunal and hold that inasmuch as the vehicle was not available with the department and the department had only a sale proceeds of Rs. 17,000/-, deducting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the respondent in terms of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal towards redemption fine, the department (the petitioner) shall pay the respondent the balance. I should also like to note that the very prayer of the petitioner before me is for a direction to the department to refund the sale proceeds of the lorry viz. Rs. 17,000/- after realisation of the redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/- and other Customs charges, if any. 5. This order is passed without prejudice to all the rights of the respondent to pursue and prosecute such remedies and action as is open to the respondent under law. I further direct that the petitioner shall send the amount by a cheque to the respondent as per law within a week from the receipt of this order.
........
|
