|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 194 Records
-
1988 (5) TMI 226 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Removal without accounting of goods ... ... ... ... ..... 2A. emsp Since the fine and penalty imposed by the Additional Collector works out more than 200 of the duty attempted to be evaded, I see no justification to enhance the penalty. That apart by reason of my findings the duty liability gets reduced and the fine amount of Rs. 18,000/- required to be set aside. On this ground also there is no good reason to grant the prayer made by the Collector in the appeal. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the Collector, namely, ED(BOM A11) of 1986 is rejected. 24. emsp The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part. The confiscation of 11459 L. Mtrs. seized from the possession of the factory and released on payment of fine of Rs. 18,000/- is set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the assessee. The demand of duty made in respect of 12,900.75 L. Mtrs. covered by 10 challans is also set aside. The duty, if paid, shall be refunded to the assessee. In other respects, the order passed by the Additional Collector is confirmed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dross and skimmings are neither goods nor end-products ... ... ... ... ..... 4. All the exclusions are of good prime-quality products whose inclusion (but for the exclusion) everybody would have taken for granted without demur and without reservations. Not so with dross. A few may say it goes with the prime aluminium, or lead or copper most others will resist it, and I with them. Dross is no aluminium not even waste aluminium. You may wrench some metal out of them for that matter, rag pickers lift rags and waste paper and cans from refuse heaps. It will not prove that the refuse bin will be classed as a cotton bale, or a paper (or pulp) roll. 15. The exclusion in Item 27 of dross and skimmings is not because if not excluded it will be assessed in that item, but because it does not class as an aluminium, as a goods. It is, as its name tells us, dross i.e. scum, refuse, worthless matter, rejected matter, useless matter. 16. I, therefore, hold that the assessment of the dross and skimmings is not legal as they are not goods under the Central Excise laws.
-
1988 (5) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Polypropylene Adhesive Coated Jumbo Rolls ... ... ... ... ..... tor (Customs) that ldquo if the intention were to include all products of plastic there would not have been the need to specify only certain categories of finished articles ready for use rdquo is not at all convincing. It is settled law that there is no room for intendment while interpreting the Notification. As such we hold that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of the exemption Notification. Consequently the imported goods are liable to be assessed after giving benefit of Notification No. 341/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 as amended. Thus we answer this question in affirmative. 10. emsp In the result the confiscation of the imported goods is upheld but keeping in view the fact that there was no malafide intention on the part of the appellants we reduce the amount of redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). The penalty amount of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the appellant is also confirmed being a nominal one. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
-
1988 (5) TMI 223 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Question of law already settled by High Court’s decisions ... ... ... ... ..... aracter of the vessel for the time being was relevant and not the character of the goods carried in the daughter vessel. Both the High Courts rejected the above contentions. They held that daughter vessels could not be treated in any way different from the foreign going vessels from which cargo had to be discharged. The daughter vessels were only a means adopted for use in order to enable to discharge the cargo on land. 8. The ratio of the decision would apply to the facts of the present case. If admittedly a commercial vessel in one of its voyage brings only contraband goods concealed in its hold the benefit of the proviso to sub-section of Section 115 cannot be denied to such a vessel. As stated earlier there is no scope to interpret the proviso in any other manner. Therefore, the question raised by the Collector cannot be considered as disputed question of law. 9. On consideration of all aspects we see no merit in this Reference Application. Accordingly we reject the same.
-
1988 (5) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ice dated 29.3.1976 had been paid, and in accordance with the rules and the directions of the Collector. There was no contravention of any rule, no concealment of facts and no infraction of any procedure or directives of the department. Had there been any, I would expect the adjudicator to inflict a suitable penalty. He did not he did not even deny the assessees rsquo claim that they followed the notice of 1976. And only in 1980, as the show cause notice records, he approved a classification list No. 1/80-81 for assessment under Item 26AA. The absence of any infliction or punishment means the absence of contravention. He demands the payment of the duty of a lac and a half only because the department changed their mind and because they found that the previous assessment was incorrect. But this does not make the past removals a contravention of rule 9(1) and, therefore, no demand under rule 9(2) can be made. 12. I set aside the demand and prohibit recovery of the duty demanded.
-
1988 (5) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... ing the goods to their source and to the man who actually fabricated, forged, made manipulated them, ignoring the man who claims he had them manufactured. This, of course, is only the inconsistency side. 9. However, for want of the necessary detail, a final decision must pend for the time being. The argument of the assessees was that they were not the manufacturers and they had maintained this from the time the proceedings started before the Assistant Collector, till the appeal reached us. Since the Assistant Collector has not done anything to establish it or disprove it, I would like him to do so and try again. He may call for documents by all means if he wants them, but whether he obtains them or not, I would strongly recommend that he should determine by whatever means are available to him whether the shackle plates were manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Everest Tools. 10. For this purpose, I set aside both the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and of the Assistant Collector.
-
1988 (5) TMI 220 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - Canalised item ... ... ... ... ..... In his order the Collector (Appeals) observed - ldquo Olive oil is, no doubt, mentioned elsewhere viz. in Appx. 10. rdquo Having recorded such a finding his further finding which is unintelligible and which reads ldquo but its entry is prohibited by the provisions of para 217(e) of the same Policy. rdquo This finding is self-contradictory. There is no scope to invoke para 217(e) if the import of olive oil is specifically by the Policy. 13. emsp Crude drugs are specifically allowed for import under OGL. According to the Policy this item can be imported by all persons. Olive oil specifically appears at item 58 of list 4. Therefore, para 217(e) is no bar for import of olive oil as crude drug by all persons. 14. emsp On consideration of all the aspects, I hold that the view taken by the authorities below is totally erroneous, and against the provisions of the Policy. Accordingly, I set aside the orders and allow this appeal. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.
-
1988 (5) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... A.I.R. is in one direction, into the tube, and the valve blocks reversal of the flow. These, therefore, are non-return valves, different from the Lee Muirhead valves. 9. The bench (in Lee Muirhead) was further dissatisfied by the lack of evidence to show that the valves were corrosion resisting materials, and by the absence of anything to show that the valves were resistant to the corrosion of the fluid passing through them. In these circumstances, the bench would not very well have been satisfied that the valves were of corrosion resisting metal. 10. But we do not have this difficulty. We know that these valves are of copper alloy, and we also know that they are corrosion resistant to the fluid, A.I.R., which will pass through them. In short, they are valves made of corrosion resisting copper alloy. That decision is not applicable here. 11. I direct assessment to be made under 84.61(2) and all other actions necessary from this assessment to be taken accordingly. 12. I agree.
-
1988 (5) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . We could not take advantage of the market conditions and increase the price as we are a Public Sector Undertaking, profit element being subsidiary. The normal trade practice in regard to warranty was one year and the other manufacturers could afford to give it as they had a large margin. By another Affidavit sworn on the same day, the General Manager explained why they had considered three months free warranty quite adequate for the TVs. They stated that a technical study made by Research Analyst, Shri DOKR Sharma, showed that the number of failures were more during the first three months. Hence they considered it correct to give free warranty service only for the first three months. The learned representative of the department had nothing to say on what the appellants have stated in the Affidavit. We find the explanation given by the appellants satisfactory. 8. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1988 (5) TMI 195 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Delay in shipment not due to any reasonable cause ... ... ... ... ..... s was sought against the dead(expired) licence, in the instant case admittedly the subject goods were shipped after the expiry of the Licence No.PK/L/M/3019946 dated 31.3.1984 on 31.3.1985 and no evidence was produced by the appellants to show that the delay in shipment was due to any cause, much less a reasonable cause, except that an importer has right to import the goodswithin the grace period as provided in Para 209(1), ibid after the expiry of the licence. In the circumstances, if the authorities below in their discretion did not thinlit proper to condone the delay of 28 days in shipment of the imported goods in terms of sub-para (1) read with sub-para (4) of para 209 of the Handbook of Import-Export Procedures, 1983-84 no fault can be found and no question of any discrimination arises. (I also) under these circumstances (do not think) it proper to interfere with the discretion exercised by the authorities below. 7. In the light of foregoing discussions the appeal fails.
-
1988 (5) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
When Public Notice deemed to be having retrospective effect ... ... ... ... ..... ement of the policy and/or the date of a specific endorsement thereof. When pointed out by the Bench that this question as to whether an importer had a vested right to import was never argued at the time of hearing of appeal on merits, Shri Nankani, learned Counsel for the applicants with his usual fairness admitted that this question that the importer had a vested right was never argued but submitted that the proposed question arises on the finding given by the Tribunal. 13. We have considered the arguments and find that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of I.T. Commr. v. S..S. Navigation Co. Ltd. Supra this question does not arise out of the order passed ty this Tribunal, notwithstanding that it may arise on the finding given by the Tribunal.,Hence this question is also not referrable. 14. In the result the reference application is rejected as no question of law meriting reference arises out of the order passed by this Tribunal.
-
1988 (5) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... rong to encourage or entertain the belief that ft is honourable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges. 14. We have no hesitation, looking at all the facts pertaining to these two units in holding that the creation of Balamurii was nothing but a subterfuge and the firm itself is sham. It is a shadow which has no substance and Intended only to create a facade toe-hind which the state was to be deprived of its legitimate tax. Even after considering the case law cited by the Ld Consultant, we have notification at all In holding so. There Is only one factory and only one manufacturer on whose behalf the goods are manufactured. the Asstt. Collector and Collector (Appeals) arrived at their conclusions by different routes. Our finding, based on facts as recorded above, leads on to the dismissal of the appeals. We order accordingly. 15. Both the appeals are rejected.
-
1988 (5) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... he hands of these appellants. 13. Just one more point and I shall be done. The original authorities say that the items i.e. the purlins, trusses, etc. made out of the inputs constitute manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excises and Salt Act attracting levy under Item 68. What meaning? Section 2(f) says not one word about any meaning. It not say that when materials are taken and sized to fit them for the job, as in this case, there tea manufacture for the purpose of central excise levy. There is even less in this section to sanction Section 2 does not define manufacture and I do not understand how the two learned adjudicating authorities understood processing, drilling, cutting that went into the working of making purlins trusses out of angles, channels and rounds to be manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f). 14. I set aside the two orders-in-original and decree that no duty is payable by these appellants as demanded by the two fewer authorities.
-
1988 (5) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... and this Tribunal in support of his plea. We observe that the case law cited by the respondents relates to packing paper utilised for the clearance of other paper in a packed condition and the question in these proceedings was that of levy of duty on this paper which had suffered duty once earlier and the eligibility for proforma credit of the duty paid earlier on this under Rule 56A. Here the question is of multiple point levy. As a proposition of law, there is nothing against the item having to suffer duty when forms packing material of other excisable goods chargeable to duty under different tariff headings. There is nothing in law which prohibits such a levy nor has any case law been cited in this regard. 9. In view of the above, we hold that the paper reel cores are not component parts of paper and benefit of Notification No. 201/79 is not available as claimed by the respondents and as held by the Collector (Appeals). In view of this, we allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1988 (5) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI .
Claasification ... ... ... ... ..... was exercising his revisionary powers under Section 35A (2) of the Act as it then stood. Distinction and difference between an adjudicating authority and a revising authority is well understood and the role of adjudicating authority in the field of central excise is comparable to trial court in civil law and criminal law. This apart from the narration set out above it would be seen that in appeal filed by the respondent manufacturer (No. ED/1217/83-C) - the manufacturer was appellant in the appeal - the classification of the product after taking note of learned Departmental Representative rsquo s submissions against an earlier Tribunal decision has already been decided as being one under Tariff Item 68. Therefore we fail to see how the present appeal by the Revenue against the aforesaid classification could be maintained. We therefore partly for the reason uphold the respondents objection and partly for the reason set out as aforesaid dismiss this appeal as not maintainable.
-
1988 (5) TMI 189 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Suspension or revocation of licence ... ... ... ... ..... . 3. Secondly, it is urged that under Regulation No. 1, the Collector if empowered to suspend or revoke the licence of a Custom House Agents on the grounds specified therein. According to Mr. Makhija, in the case of the Petitioner, the grounds mentioned in the Regulation No. 21 do not exist and revocation made without any show cause notice is illegal. This submission is without any merit. The petitioner No. 1 is the holder of a temporary licence which means that he has been temporarily permitted to carry on the work of clearance of goods. He has not yet been granted regular licence. The question of cancellation or revocation of licence arises when the licence is, in fact, granted to the Petitioner. As holder of the temporary licence and a candidate at the examination conducted under Regulation No. 9, the Petitioner is still an aspirant for the licence and not holder of the licence. Regulation No. 21 has no applicable. For all these reasons, the petition is rejected summarily.
-
1988 (5) TMI 174 - CEGAT, DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... visual examination of the goods which to him appeared to be bright, even though he admits that the goods have acquired brightness incidentally and they have not been given brightness deliberately in grinding. We find that the learned adjudicating authority has referred to the Deputy Chief Chemist opinion. The Deputy Chief Chemist, however, does not categorically say that these are bright bars. We also observe that the importer is an established manufacturer of an item as well which is an import substitution item and is supplied to the Railways. The importer would have got licences even for Appendix 5 items which the department feels the instant goods fall under. Having regard to these overall facts and circumstances and in the absence of any categorical expert opinion that the goods are bright bars we are of the opinion that the confiscation of goods in the instant case is not justified. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1988 (5) TMI 173 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ntended by the learned S.D.R. Notification No. 197/86 is not clarificatory of an existing position in Rule 57A, but on the other hand is intended to confer the benefit of MODVAT credit on inputs manufactured and used within the factory of production. The Notification expressly states that it will be operative only prospectively. A conjoint reading of Rule 57A and Notification No. 197/86 referred to supra would make it clear that the appellant would be entitled to take MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs manufactured and used in the factory of production only on and from the date of Notification No. 197/86, dated 14-3-1986. In the instant case the authorities have rightly held that this MODVAT facility in terms of the Notification referred to supra would not be available to the items in question prior to 14-3-1986 and in this case for the period 1-3-1986 to 13-3-1986.1, therefore, uphold the findings of the authorities below under the impugned orders and dismiss the appeal.
-
1988 (5) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption subject to filing of declaration ... ... ... ... ..... value of clearances effected fell within the prescribed parameters. The declaration required was contained in the respondents rsquo letter addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Collector (Appeals), in our opinion, has correctly held that though the covering letter was addressed to the Superintendent, the declaration should be deemed to have been filed with the Assistant Collector, since the covering letter with the classification list had been submitted to the Assistant Collector for approval. Though it may be that some clearances had been effected prior to the approval of classification list No. 1/83, it is clear that there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the notification and there is no good reason to deny the benefit of the notification especially in view of the fact that the value of clearances were strictly within the parameters set in the notification. In these circumstances, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
-
1988 (5) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-entry of duty-paid goods in factory ... ... ... ... ..... f the benefit of the procedure under Rule 173-H vide Superintendent rsquo s letter dated 30.12.1976, we fail to understand on what basis the department has now contended that there is a loss of 30 . This is a mere assertion on the part of the department without any supporting data or evidence. 10. We also find substantial force in the contention of the learned advocate for the respondent company that substantial portion of the demands would be time barred because no allegation or suppression of fact has been alleged in the show cause notices and that the company had been working with the approval of the department under the procedure of Rule 173-H. The original authority rsquo s finding and the contention of the Appellant-Collector that the respondent company mis-stated the process of manufacture is untenable in view of the detailed letter dated 22/30.4.1976 of the respondent company mentioned supra. 11. In view of our discussion and findings above, the appeals are dismissed.
........
|
