|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 293 Records
-
1988 (3) TMI 211
Evidence - Statement Demand ... ... ... ... ..... v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta (supra). These decisions, however, cannot in the background of facts of this case, come to the help of the appellant. This is not a case of bland confessions and prompt retractions. The statements made by Periasamy and Sivalingam are fully supported by the records seized by the department. Retraction was made after many days and, therefore, seems to be in the nature of an after-thought. In the case of Sivalingam, while making the retraction, it is stated that he neither knew how to read or write. The statement recorded says that it was read out to him. What is more is that the statement is supported by records furnished by Sivalingam himself. In the case of Periasamy rsquo s statement, it is not at all claimed that he could not read or write and his statement is also fully supported by documents seized from him. 18. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the demand for duty as well as the imposition of penalty. 19. Dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 210
Artificial resins and plastic materials ... ... ... ... ..... ower authority and order that the matter be decided de novo in the light of our findings above. We therefore allow the appeal by remand. per S.D.Jha, Vice President (J) . - I have carefully gone through the order proposed by Brother Gulati, Member (Technical). I agree with him that CCCN would not be of any help in resolving the present controversy. The goods in question Polyether Polyol is not specified in Heading 39.01 CTA or Item 15A(1) CET and its classification under the two depends on similarity with resols and liquid polyisobutylene. While it bears resemblance on the two points set out by Brother Gulati, it appears that there is no material on record on its resemblance to resols and liquid polyisobutylene on the point of resinous character or plasticity which qualities appear to be the essential character of the two products with which it should bear similarity. I agree with Brother Gulati that the matter requires remand for examination of similarity on the third point.
-
1988 (3) TMI 209
Valuation - When sales made through shadow firms ... ... ... ... ..... e, acceptable as the basis for determination of assessable values of the fabrics under Section 4(1)(a). (3) No addition is required to be made to M/s. Agarcon rsquo s purchase price on account of any design/fashion feed-back voluntarily supplied by them to the respondents. (4) From M/s. Agarcon rsquo s purchase price, deduction should be made of the amount, to be quantified by the Collector after due verification, attributable to (i) cost of transport from the respondents rsquo factory gate to the premises of M/s. Agarcon, and (ii) interest charges for the credit period enjoyed by M/s. Agarcon from the date of removal of the goods from the respondents rsquo factory. 19. In the result, we set aside the order-in-original of the Collector and direct him to re-determine the assessable values, and the consequential liability of the respondents to differential duty, if any, in the light of our orders in the preceding paragraphs. The reference application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (3) TMI 208
... ...
... ... ..... sale and their money value computed and added to the appellants rsquo sale price to the distributors, in terms of Rule 5 of the Central .Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. We so order. 3. Because of the compulsion on the distributors to spend some money on advertisement and publicity of the appellants rsquo goods, provisos (iii) and (v) of exemption Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 were violated. This exemption, that is, the procedure of assessment on the basis of invoice values, was not admissible to the appellants. We order that their goods should be assessed for the relevant period under Section 4 of the Act on the basis of the appellants rsquo sale price to their distributors plus the money value of the additional consideration in terms of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. The demand should be revised on this basis and restricted to the period of six months preceding the issue of the show cause notice. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms.
-
1988 (3) TMI 207
Whether confiscation of fabrics, not removed from factory, and imposition of redemption fine,justified
-
1988 (3) TMI 206
... ...
... ... ..... erials aforesaid. She agreed that the ratio of the decision would apply to Phosphoric Acid also. She reiterated the arguments urged by the appellants when the Tribunal took the aforesaid decision and in particular relied on the four decisions referred to in para 6 of the decision. 1. 1987 (28) E.L.T. 529 (Tribunal) CCE Allahabad v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation, Mirzapur. 2. 1985 (21) E.L.T. 901 (Tribunal) CCE, Bhubaneshwar v. Titaghur Paper Mills. 3. 1985 (22) E.L.T. 163 (Tribunal) SRB Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. C.C.E. 4. 1985 (22) E.L.T. 594 (Tribunal) Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur. 4. In the decisions supra the Tribunal held bleaching activated earth and nickel catalyst as not being raw materials and ineligible to benefit of exemption under Notification 201/79-C.E. after its amendment by Notification 105/82, dated 1.3.1982. The Bench sees no reason to depart from the ratio of the decision. Following the same the appeals are dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 205
Sound Vibration analysing system ... ... ... ... ..... stry. From the order of the Collector it is clear that the subject goods are capable of use in several diverse industries and are not specially designed for use in the automotive industry only. The Collector observed that this fact has not been disputed by the appellants. Nor has any catalogue etc. been produced before us to controvert this conclusion of the Collector. The argument for the appellants is only that they proposed to use this machinery for testing in their tractor unit only and therefore they would qualify for benefit under Notification 243/78. As earlier mentioned, benefit under notification would be available only to goods designed for testing purposes in the automotive industry. In so far as the subject goods are not specially designed for the said purpose but appear to be general purpose machine for use in various industries, we hold that the lower authorities rightly rejected the benefit claimed under the notification. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 204
Words and Phares ... ... ... ... ..... lware as metalware, as cooking utensils covered with an enamel surface. This definition in our opinion would go in support of our earlier conclusion that this term enamelware would apply to readymade goods saleable across the counter rather than tailor made special machinery equipment. We may incidentally note that in the order of the Collector (Appeals) reference is made to IS 2727 of 1977 also, apart from IS 2717/1979. Shri Balbir Singh submitted that there appears to be no IS 2727 of 1977. 15. In the light of our discussion earlier we are satisfied that the benefit of the exemption claimed by the respondents was not available to them with reference to their products supra. We accordingly hold that the Assistant Collector was right in rejecting the claim for exemption and that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in setting aside the said order. Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assistant Collector.
-
1988 (3) TMI 203
... ...
... ... ..... r authorities, provided that the claim is backed by sufficient material on record. In the present matter before us the ground of appeal raised by the applicants is purely a legal ground and on the issue of jurisdiction it can always be raised at any stage. Accordingly we allow the request of the applicants and order that the additional ground of appeal proposed by the applicants as follows - ldquo that the learned Additional Collector of Central Excise Kanpur is/was not the Additional Collector of Customs as appointed under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 by notification. Therefore, the order-in-original No. 3-Addl./Collr./Cus./84, dated 29-9-198t passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur under the Customs Act, 1962 is without any jurisdiction and therefore the order is a nullity and is liable to be quashed. rdquo Should be read as the last ground of appeal in the grounds of appeal set out by the applicants in form No. CA-3. Pronounced in the Open Court.
-
1988 (3) TMI 202
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... eady paid the central excise duty at same stage or the other. But this was quite common in the Central Excise Tax Structure prevalent at the material time and the law and the Tariff specifically provided for it, relief being given only on a selective basis by way of proforma credit or set off for the duty paid on the inputs. In the case of the appellants, the final product was the paper wrapped on the reel core. The appellants charged the full price of the paper as well as the reel core from their customers. According to the Supreme Court judgment in the Empire Industries case aforesaid, the full intrinsic value of the paper, inclusive of the cost of the essential reel core, was chargeable to duty. We agree with the learned representative of the department that the facts in the Seshasayee rsquo s case aforesaid being different, the ratio of that case was not binding for deciding the appeal before us. 7. In the circumstances, we uphold the lower orders and dismiss this appeal.
-
1988 (3) TMI 201
Non payment of duty under bona fide mistaken impression ... ... ... ... ..... e quantum of duty will have to be reworked. 15. So far as the penalties imposed on the appellants we hold that in the light of our discussion earlier the penalties will have to be set aside since there had been no conscious contravention of the liability for payment of duty. 16. So far as redemption fine imposed on the confiscated goods we are of the opinion that the same also merits reduction to a nominal sum. The quantum of redemption of fine is reduced to Rs. 250/- in each case. 17. In the result the orders of lower authority in each case is modified in the following manner (a) the demand for duty is confined in each case to the period of six months preceding the show cause notice (b) the question of valuation will be gone into afresh and based on the finding thereon the quantum of duty will be reworked (c) the penalties are set aside in all the cases (d) the redemption is reduced in each case to Rupees two hundred and fifty. 18. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
-
1988 (3) TMI 200
... ...
... ... ..... ry material to examine the point of limitation. It is, therefore, necessary to remand these matters to the lower authority for examining the question of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 with reference to the relevant records. Following the earlier decisions (Supra), we hold that unrebated rate of duty prescribed under the Notification issued under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules was payable in respect of Aviation Turbine Fuel supplied by the respondents to the foreign bound aircrafts in bonds under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside. We, however, remand the matters to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division K-1, Bombay-1, for de-novo examination on the point whether the demands raised against these respondents and covered by these appeals are barred by limitation under Section 11 A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 8. The 8 appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1988 (3) TMI 199
Penalty - Contravention of Rules ... ... ... ... ..... h, the department had alleged represented lower prices than those already approved, has since been approved by the department and demand for differential duty dropped. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been any evasion of duty. 18. Shri Aggarwal has submitted that this is a case at best of technical violation of rules. We rest content by saying that this is a case where it is not shown that there has been any attempt to evade duty. 19. There can be no faulting the finding of the learned Additional Collector, however, that the assessee was working under the Self Removal Procedure whereunder a trust was reposed that they would abide by the Central Excise law and procedure. Failure strictly to comply with the rules, therefore, cannot be dismissed as mere technical violation of rules. 20. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we, however, reduce the penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Appeal partly allowed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 198
Polyester fibre manufactured out of waste and chips ... ... ... ... ..... available pro rata on the final product, and not to deny it altogether by introducing the concept that for eligibility under the notification the manufacture should have been out of waste alone. 14 In this connection we may note that in 1980 when Notification No. 44/80-C.E., dated 24-4-1980 was issued it read that in order to claim benefit of exemption under the notification the fibres and tops should have been manufactured exclusively out of wastes. Therefore, the Government, whenever it felt inclined to confer the benefit of exemption on manufactures exclusively out of waste, took care to introduce this concept in issuing the notification itself. This would also give an indication that when no such word is to be found in the notification the intention was not to deny wholly the benefit if the manufacture was not exclusively out of the waste but to grant it pro rata. 15. In this view I agree that the appeal is to be allowed and the orders of the lower authorities set aside.
-
1988 (3) TMI 197
Refund - Higher Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... when the declaration was filed. We hold that the claim of the appellants that limitation will have to be computed only from the date of the order on the declaration (fixing the base clearance) cannot be accepted. 10. The declaration in this case was filed on 2-2-1979. We, therefore, hold that the refund claims will have to be held to be within time so far as duty paid on and after 2-8-1978 but barred by time in respect of payments made prior to that date. 11. In the above circumstances it is unnecessary to consider the issue whether the date of receipt of the refund claim in the office of the Superintendent would be relevant or the date of the receipt thereof in the Office of the Assistant Collector. 12. Accordingly the orders of the lower authorities are modified. We hold that in the instant three claims the appellants would be entitled to refund of the differential duty in respect of duty paid on and after 2-8-1978 only. The appeal is accordingly allowed on the above terms.
-
1988 (3) TMI 196
Import of Khas Khas ... ... ... ... ..... ndix-5/Pt.B of AM-1985-88 Policy and therefore, the goods could not be imported under OGL. In view of the aforesaid finding it is not necessary to consider the incidental question whether the goods can be considered as consumer goods falling under S. No. 121 Appendix-2/Pt. B of the Policy. However, on the question of imposition of fine, having regard to the various facts and circumstances particularly the fact that the importer is an actual user, the goods are required by him as a raw material in the manufacture of drug for which he is duly licensed and the additional factor that similar goods were treated earlier by the Collector (Appeals) as under OGL, though in a different Policy, it would meet the ends of justice if the fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs. 8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) in each of the cases. Accordingly, subject to reduction of redemption fine to Rs. 8000/-(Rupees eight thousand only) in each case, the impugned order is otherwise confirmed.
-
1988 (3) TMI 195
Subsequent amendments inapplicable ... ... ... ... ..... eparate sub-headings for PVC sheets and for PVC floor coverings. The Additional Collector has recorded the finding that the goods were PVC floor coverings and not PVC sheets. The appellant addressed no argument before us during the hearing so far as the customs tariff classification is concerned and, we, therefore, do not go into the tariff classification aspect. 5. The appellant submitted before us that the goods, after their importation, had remained under detention and had so far incurred the demmurage of Rs. 85,000/-. Considering this factor and also the tact that we have found force in the pleas of the appellant on two aspects of Import Trade Control, we consider that some reduction in the amounts of fine and penalty is called for. Accordingly, we reduce the amount of fine in lieu of confiscation as well as penalty to Rs. 50,000/- each. 6. But for the 50 reduction in the amounts of fine and penalty, as ordered in the preceding paragraph, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1988 (3) TMI 194
Valuation - When goods partly sold at the factory gate and partly at depots ... ... ... ... ..... authorities. The appellants say that no one asked them to produce such evidence. Be that as it may, it would be open to the Assistant Collector to go into the comparison of ex-factory sale prices and depot sale prices, net of all admissible deductions, in the course of his inquiry whether ex-factory sales were genuine or not. If the ex-factory sales prices compared well with the net depot sale prices, he should accept the ex-factory sale prices. If the comparison reveals that the ex-factory sales prices were artificially low, it would be open to him to reject them and go on the basis of the prices determined from depot sale prices after allowing deduction of the admissible costs, vide the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bombay Tyres International Ltd. 1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.) . 6. In the result, we set aside the lower orders and allow the three appeals by way of remand in the above terms. Pronounced in open Court.
-
1988 (3) TMI 193
Import-Synthetic rags ... ... ... ... ..... e the W.R.B. of this Tribunal are almost identical to the facts in these cases. We respectfully agree with the decision of the W.R.B. in the case of Subhash Woollen Mills. 18. In the instant cases, however, since the goods are not available, no further mutilation is possible. For that reason, however, the impugned orders cannot be sustained because confiscation cannot be justified on the basis of our finding of lack of identifiable test of complete mutilation. 19. Lastly, the finding of mis-declarationgiven by the Additional Collector in the case of the last two appellants on the ground that the goods were found to be ldquo pre-mutilated rdquo only and not ldquo completely pre-mutilated rdquo as declared in the Bills of Entry is not sustainable for the same reason i.e. lack of definite standard of mutilation in the Policy. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, while setting aside the impugned orders, we allow all the four appeals with consequential relief to the appellants
-
1988 (3) TMI 192
Essential Character of product should be acquired by manual labour ... ... ... ... ..... mstances of the case, levy of the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. So far as the confiscation of the goods is concerned on account of what we have stated above, the same is also maintainable. The amount appropriated in respect of the same is not excessive and calls for no reduction. But for the modification as above, the appeal is otherwise dismissed. 8. Order per S.D. Jha, Vice-President . - The evidence of commercial understanding with all the infirmities therein brought out by brother Gulati, Member (Technical) in the order proposed by him is relatable to Agarbatties and not to Dhoop which is the product involved in the present appeal. I agree with brother Gulati that based on that evidence, the appellants could not get benefit of exemption under the notification in respect of Dhoop sticks in manufacture of which no craft or skill of hand is involved and the only contribution made by hand is cutting the sticks to pieces. I agree with the order proposed by brother Gulati.
............
|
