|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 194 Records
-
1988 (5) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Glass - Flame proof well glasses are not shells ... ... ... ... ..... der Chapter 85 only envelopes were excluded from its purview and shells continued to fall under Heading 85 and in that view of the matter, benefit of Notification No. 106/77 would become available to the goods as the goods would fall under Chapter 85 CTA. We observe that the Tribunal while deciding the classification of the goods has held that the envelopes or shells stand excluded from the scope of Chapter 85 CTA. We observe that Tariff Item 23A covers Glass Shells, Glass Globes and Chimneys for lamps and Lanterns. The glass envelopes would be covered by the broad term shells and in case the authorities have for C.V.D. duty, held the same to be so, it does not make any difference to the facts in regard to the assessment of the goods under the Customs Tariff as held by the Tribunal referred to supra. 3. We find no reasons to depart from the decision of the Tribunal referred to supra and following the ratio of this decision, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
-
1988 (5) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... pe and quality to be parts of ladles, they would not fall within Chapter 84 because of the aforesaid statutory note. They would fall under Heading 69.01/02 because of their being specified in that heading. It may also be noted that CCCN Explanatory Notes under Heading 69.02 (the Indian Customs Tariff Schedule has a merged heading of the two separate Headings 69.01 and 69.02 of the CCCN) states that ldquo Refractory rdquo bricks of all shapes, including keystones and other specially shaped bricks even if they are clearly recognisable as being of the kind specially designed for the construction of plant or machinery falling within Section XVI (Chapter 84 falls within Section XVI) are included in the Heading. 10. In the above view of the matter, the subject refractory bricks were correctly classified by the lower authorities under Heading 69.01/02 without the benefit of Notification No. 242 dated 2-8-1976. 11. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... the present case, the Collector has not stated specifically as to the nature of the fabrication work done on any particular raw materials by the appellants and also the nature of any excisable goods which came into existence. He has, nearly relied on the terms of the contract but has not come on record to show that any new products emerged during the fabrication stated to have been done by the respondents in the course of their contract work for the purposes of the levy of Central Excisable duty. The ld. J.D.R. for the department also made no plea in this regard. We observe in respect to the very same party that the Tribunal on the similar points raised before them in their order No. 578/B1 have negatived the plea of the Revenue and held that no goods emerged for the purposes of Central Excise levy. In view of what we have stated above and following the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal, referred to supra we find no merit in the plea of the Revenue and dismiss the appeal.
-
1988 (5) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Court fee stamps ... ... ... ... ..... or (Appeals), New Delhi did not stipulate the requirement of affixing the court fee stamp to his appeal before the said Collector. In any case it is submitted by the appellant that this deficiency in not affixing the court fee stamp could be got made up subsequently if the appellant had been told so by the office of the Collector (Appeals). No opportunity to make up that deficiency had been given to the appellant. 4. Learned D.R. has no comments to make on the grounds of appeal set out above. 5. We accept the contention of the appellant herein it ought to have been afforded an opportunity of making up the deficiency in affixing the court fee stamp. Since such an opportunity was not given to the appellant the impugned order is bad in law. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals). He will give an opportunity to the appellant to affix the necessary court fee stamp and thereafter he shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
-
1988 (5) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import Trade Control - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... of Advance Licensing Scheme have been violated or not, according to the learned Advocate, is Collector of Customs, Madras. This has been so decided by the Tribunal in the case of Metro Exports 1988 (14) E.C.R. 169 . This has been further confirmed, according to him by the Tribunal under orders-in-appeal Nos. 48 and 49/88-D, dated 8-1-88 in the cases of M/s. Relish FoodPvt. Ltd. 3. Learned JDR appearing for the revenue has conceded the matter on a question of jurisdiction and states that the aforesaid cases squarely cover this matter as well. He, however, reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority whose order is before the Tribunal in the instant case. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. Having regard to the Tribunal rsquo s earlier decisions referred to above, we allow the appeal on the question of jurisdiction itself without going into the merits of the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed while setting aside the impugned order.
-
1988 (5) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drugs and Medicines ... ... ... ... ..... authorities and by us is that benefit of exemption aforesaid is available to the appellants. In the situation aforesaid there is no question of the claim being time-barred or belated. The benefit of exemption flows from the stand taken by the Revenue and not from the stand urged by the appellants. It is also well settled that plea as to classification if necessary facts be thereon record can be taken up at any stage. Besides sub-section (3) of Section 27 is itself clear that where, as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under the Act, refund of any duty becomes due to any person, the proper officer may refund the amount to such person without his having to make any claim in that behalf. This would mean that limitation would not apply in the aforesaid situation. We, therefore, accept the alternative claim of the appellants for benefit of exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982. 9. The appeal is disposed of in the foregoing terms and is allowed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Claasification ... ... ... ... ..... hri Harbans Singh, Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Zutshi for the Department. 3. The Supreme Court held in the case of M/s. Atul Glass Industries Ltd. (1986 Vol. 25 E.L.T. 473) that wind-shield glasses of motor vehicles are classifiable under item 68-CET and not under item 23-A(4). Following the said decision we hold that the orders of the lower authorities were incorrect. 4. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the orders of lower authorities and direct assessment under item 68-CET for purpose of additional duty of customs and order consequential relief.
-
1988 (5) TMI 269 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penalty - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... e present case. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that in the absence of corroboration, retracted statement of a person cannot constitute the sole basis for finding that the charges against the appellant are proved. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the Kalyana Raman case referred to above has also taken the similar view. At any rate, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, I hold that there is no evidence against the appellant excepting the retracted statement of one Chidambaram for which there is no supporting corroborative evidence. The chits are not proved to have been written by the appellant nor the figures mentioned therein tally with the ornaments under seizure either in terms of quantity or otherwise. I therefore, give the appellant the benefit of doubt in the circumstances and exonerate him of the charges. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 268 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Baggage - Confiscation of motor cycle ... ... ... ... ..... orities below are justified in not accepting the appellant rsquo s contention that the motor cycle was his unaccompanied baggage. It was not the contention of Shri Harish that the appellant could import motor cycle other than as a baggage item without licence or CCP. Admittedly, no CCP was obtained before the import of the motor cycle. In the circumstances, the order of confiscation passed by the Asstt. Collector and confirmed by the Appellate Collector cannot be said to be bad in law. 7. The plea of Shri Harish that the motor cycle should be released on payment of fine cannot be accepted. In flagrant violation of the Import (Control) Order, the motor cycle had been imported. From the statement of the appellant it is clear that the import was also not for his personal use. The possibility of it being misused, cannot be ruled out. There is no good ground to allow redemption on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. 8. In the result this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1988 (5) TMI 255 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... ted our attention to order No. 536/Cal/86/7162, dated 26-11-86 passed by the East Regional Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Man singka Brothers and other. We find, however, that the Calcutta Bench rsquo s order dealt with question of amendments to the Policy made after the date of issue of the statutory order. No such question arises in the case before us, since, we are concerned with meaning and scope of Appendix 9 of the Policy as it stood on the date of issue of the statutory order, the Calcutta Bench rsquo s or is therefore, not relevant for the discussion before us. 7. Accordingly, we hold that the import of amoxycillin trihydrate being canalised by Appendix 9 of AM-80 Policy, the appellants were not entitled to import it in June, 1979. The Board had already granted very substantial relief by reducing the amount of redemption fine to just about 10 of the value of the goods. We do not think any further relief is merited. 8. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1988 (5) TMI 254 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Customs duty paid without disputes ... ... ... ... ..... es and Salt Act, 1944 did not apply at all to the goods. The Customs Officer who assessed the duties had the jurisdiction to do so, even if it be assumed that the goods were partially or fully exempt from payment of additional customs duty by means of an Exemption Notification. For claiming refund of the customs duty allegedly paid in excess, the importer had to file the refund claim within six months from the payment of duty. The appellants accept that they did not do so. 5. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court had held in their judgment in the case of Miles (India) Ltd. - 1987(30) E.L.T. 641 (SC) - 1985 ECR 289 (S.C.) that a statutory authority functioning under the Customs Act is bound by the limitation provisions of the statute. Since there is no provision in the Customs Act to relax the time limit or to condone the delay, the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the refund claims of the appellants as time-barred. We uphold their orders and dismiss all the nine appeals.
-
1988 (5) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... to his conclusions as to whether the appeal had been filed within time. 8. The facts relevant thereto are stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of his order. Under Section 35-(B)(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act an appeal under that Section shall be filed within 3 months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the Collector of Central Excise. This communication is under Section 35-A(5) of the Act. Since in the present instance it appears that no such copy had been directly sent by the Collector (Appeals) to the Executive Collector it would appear to me that limitation would not have commenced to run. It would not appear to me to be correct to hold that limitation will have to be computed with reference to the date when the Executive Collector obtained a copy through the Assistant Collector to whom a copy had evidently been sent under Section 35-A(5). 1 would, therefore, hold that no question of condonation arises in the present instance.
-
1988 (5) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... only to the concealer then only is he deceiving with motive to achieve unlawful and illegal profit thereby. It is not a cocnealment to fail to declare a fact well known, a fact that should be known to the other person because then the deception does not succeed. To succeed, the deception must keep the other person in the dark so that he acquiesces in and endorses an unlawful act thinking that it is lawful. When he approves the act in the full knowledge of the relevant particulars to it, he cannot, in good faith, claim he has been deceived that he may fail to use his knowledge will not detract from this statement. 12. I am not able to accept that there has been deception, or that the central excise did not know about the inevitable fact of production of bare aluminium wire upto 9 SWG. Therefore, the claim that the demand was time barred cannot be silenced. Since the claim is time barred I annul it and bar the department from making any recovery of the moneys demanded under it.
-
1988 (5) TMI 251 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... cord. The presence of the present appellant in the car at the relevant time was not denied. The two independent witnesses, on whose statement the Collector relied, have stated that the bag containing 99 gold slabs were initially found on the lap of the present appellant. There were other circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the seized gold. The Board, no doubt, in its order did not discuss the other evidence. This may be because of the nature of the contentions urged before the Board. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted before the Board that even if the appellant rsquo s statements were accepted as correct, the appellant was a mere carrier and did not deserve such heavy punishment. Since the Board was accepting the finding of the Collector, legally also the Board was not required to discuss the evidence in detail. 20. On consideration of all the aspects, even on merit the appellant has no case. In the result this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1988 (5) TMI 250 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... ods. Admittedly the appellants did not bring to the notice of the customs as to the defects. If the claim, were to relate to the duty paid in respect of defective parts, the same would be barred by time because the claim was made long after six months after the payment of duty. But then, there was no refund claim at all in respect of defective parts stated to have been received by the appellant. The refund was sought of the duty paid in respect of replacement parts. This claim was within time. Both the authorities were not correct in holding that this claim was barred under Section 27. But then, the refund claim itself is not sustainable in law. The appellants were liable to pay duty in respect of replacement parts and they have rightly paid the duty in respect of replacement parts. Their claim for refund of duty in respect of those parts has no basis in law. I, therefore, reject this appeal not for the reasons stated by the authorities below but for the reasons stated above.
-
1988 (5) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... A, but they must be manufactured from the said copper, zinc, aluminium and lead. Apparently, the clause requires that the products from which the waste and scrap arise must be defined goods of the kind that do not fall under Item Nos. 26A, 26B, 27 and 27A, but must be manufactured from said copper, zinc, aluminium or lead (I do not know why they are ldquo said rdquo copper, zinc, aluminium and lead there must be a meaning, but it eludes me). 6. So we see that the importers must provide evidence of the products from which the waste and scrap arose, and they must also provide evidence that those products were manufactured from ldquo the said copper, zinc, aluminium and lead rdquo . They have not done this and I see no means by which they can do this, seeing that the scraps were imported from a foreign country, and their origin will have been already destroyed. I am afraid, therefore, that there is nothing to be done by us except to decline to interfere. And I do so. 7. I agree.
-
1988 (5) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Oil - Silicone oil ... ... ... ... ..... ods in that case were lubricant, the claim of the importers being that it should be classified as a lubricating preparation under Chapter 34 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The Tribunal, however, found that since the goods were only silicone oils, they were rightly classifiable under Chapter 39. Applying the principles emerging from these two decisions, the goods in the present appeal which are not silicone in any of their primary states but a silicone based complex organic compound having surface active property, the correct classification is, as claimed by the appellants, under Heading 34.01/07(3) of the Customs Tariff Schedule read with Item 15AA of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and not under Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule read with Item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, as contended by the Department. 11. In the result, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1988 (5) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Paper rolles ... ... ... ... ..... m 17. It is in this context that both the decisions of Kores (India) and Ramsay India were rendered and it was held that by converting the duty paid printing and writing paper into teleprinter paper another commodity known to the marked was produced and therefore, the duty liability again arose on the teleprinter paper. The case before us, however, relates to the Tariff Item 17 as it stood after amendment in the Budget of 1976. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions of Bombay High Court and of the Tribunal in the cases of Kores India and Ramsay India respectively would not apply to this case. The plea of the learned JDR appearing for the appellant-Collector, therefore, that in case of disagreement with the decision of the Tribunal in Ramsay India, the matter requires to be referred to a larger Bench does not hold good. 7. With the above observations, I concur with the decision rendered by the learned Technical Member Shri D.C. Mandal and concurred in by the Vice-President (J).
-
1988 (5) TMI 228 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal in Baggage case ... ... ... ... ..... 84 no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) if that order relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. 6. emsp In the instant case it has been the contention of the appellant all through that the revolver in question was imported as baggage. In the circumstances, the appeal filed to the Tribunal is not maintainable in law. 7. emsp Shri Sindhi had requested to transfer the appeal records to the Revisional authority. The Customs Act does not provide for transfer. As has been held earlier by the Tribunal following the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to transfer the appeal wrongly filed before the Tribunal. It could only return to the party for presentation to the proper forum. I therefore reject the request of Shri Sindhi. 8. emsp As no appeal lies to the Tribunal against impugned order, the Registry is directed to return the appeal papers to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum.
-
1988 (5) TMI 227 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Statement of tindel of ship corroborated by statement of crew members and other independent witnesses
........
|
