|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 194 Records
-
1988 (5) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Mis-declaration of value ... ... ... ... ..... in the transaction. No evidence has been brought forth on record that the appellant company paid foreign exchange to M/s. Dunbar Kapple Inc. Therefore, they would have got the CCP even if they had declared the correct value of the vacuvators. Keeping all these facts in view and the fact in particular that there is a specific CCP for 7 vacuvators produced by the appellant, it cannot be held that the goods were imported in violation of the provisions of Import and Export (Control) Act. Hence, the charge of liability to confiscation of 7 vacuvators under Section 111 (d) cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the aforesaid findings, we pronounce the following orders - (i) Demand of confirmation of duty as sustained in the order dated 23.5.1981 of Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta is upheld. Accordingly, appeal No. (1) i.e. 1856/81-A is dismissed. (ii) Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs is reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs. In other words, the second appeal i.e. C/A. No. 1309/83-A is partly allowed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Drugs and Medicines ... ... ... ... ..... ers-in-Appeals passed by the Collector (Appeals) Bombay and Madras (photocopies are on record) we find that these Customs Houses are extending benefit of the Notification in question that is to say, Notification No. 208/81-Cus. In these circumstances we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22-9-1981. 6. it may be stated that since we have decided as above that the imported goods fall under Item No. 19 of Schedule B of Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 we are not deciding the other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the imported goods also fall under Item No. 44 added under Heading ldquo B Life Saving Equipments rdquo under which ldquo Ancillaries for Blood Component Therapy required for the treatment of cancer rdquo and are, therefore also exempted from payment of duty. 7. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1988 (5) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the learned counsel for the appellants that Heading 87.04/06(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, was not mentioned in the show cause notice and therefore the imported goods cannot be classified under the said Heading has also no force. From the show cause notice it appears that the appellants claimed the clearance of the goods also under licence No. 2028835/C/XX/78/H/80, dated 21-1-1981 which was not found valid to cover the Motor Vehicle parts imported since the said licence was for importing of spares of machinery and instruments. All these facts were mentioned in the show cause notice. During the adjudication proceedings also the appellants pleaded that the import was covered under the said licence because the imported goods are classifiable under Heading 84.63. Under these circumstances, the department had to decide the controversy raised by the appellants. Hence no fault can be found with the show cause notice. 11. In the result we dismiss the appeal being devoid of any merit.
-
1988 (5) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing of biscuits ... ... ... ... ..... rugated boxes used for out-station deliveries of such category of biscuits were necessitated solely by the consideration of safety of the biscuits in the long distance transport. Therefore, following the principle laid down in the later judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the Godfrey Philip rsquo s case, we order that the cost of corrugated boxes should not be included in the assessable value of Glucose etc. varieties of biscuits which were in fact sold in the local wholesale market in poly bag only. Following the same principle, we order that in respect of the remaining varieties of biscuits which were sold, whether locally or to out-station buyers, only after packing in tins and corrugated boxes, the cost of tins and corrugated boxes would be includible in the assessable value. 6. We modify the impugned order-in-appeal accordingly and allow the department rsquo s appeal in part in the above terms. Consequential effect shall be given to this order by both parties.
-
1988 (5) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to Goods captively consumed ... ... ... ... ..... uty under Notification No. 118/75. 5. It appears to us that there is no clear findings by the lower authorities as to how goods were cleared or removed from the factory within the meaning of Rule 9 or 49 between 1 -3-1975 to 29-4-1975, whether by captive consumption or consumed outside the factory by the appellant themselves or by some other parties or whether captive consumption took place only after 7-5-1975 after the Smelter Plant came into existence. Shri Jain also argued that shorter time limit for raising demand would apply and the demand was barred by limitation. As we are remanding this matter, this plea should also be examined by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. 6. In the light of documents now produced by the appellant produced before us, we, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de-novo consideration to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Raipur on the lines and as per directions set out above. The appeal is thus-allowed by remand.
-
1988 (5) TMI 165 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ne applicable. The learned Counsel fairly conceded that under Rule 173J, the period of limitation is one year and Rule 173J is applicable in cases of manufactures covered by Self Removal Procedure. In the present case, the appellant, admittedly, is covered by the S.R.P. scheme, as it then stood. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, we set aside the impugned order and remand the issue for examination in light of our observations in respect of applicability of Rule 11 read with Rule 173J for consideration of the appellant rsquo s refund claim. 8. Shri Mukherjee, at this stage, fervently prayed for a direction for expeditious disposal of the matter by the original authority. Since the matter is pending since 1978, we direct that the matter be given top priority for an expeditious early disposal. 9. In our opinion, the Miscellaneous Application filed by Hindustan Polymer Ltd. is misconceived in law and we reject the same. Pronounced in open Court.
-
1988 (5) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Revision - Suo motu by Collector ... ... ... ... ..... te from the relevant date as prescribed in Section 11A. In the case of erroneous refund, the relevant date is the date of such refund, here in this case, 17-10-1980. The notice for recovery was issued only on 15-9-1981 it is time-barred and, therefore, recovery is illegal. 15. The Collector is not correct when he said that the department had a vested interest and could apply one year time-limit of sub-section 4 of Section 35A since at the relevant time of refund Section 11A was not in force, and since the action to be reviewed was taken when only one year time-limit was in force. Nobody has such a vested right -neither the citizen nor the government. The vested (?) right was taken away when Section 11A became operative from November, 1980 and brought its time-limit into operation for the purpose of controlling actions under Section 35A. 16. For all the above reasons, I rule that the order of the Collector is illegal and I prohibit recovery of the refund he said was erroneous.
-
1988 (5) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron or steel products ... ... ... ... ..... early recognised products and well-known. And the authorities who assessed them all accepted the products to be pattis. 10. However, we have the same problem here as we discussed in our order No. 118 to 131/88-B1, dated 11-3-1988. The widths of the products have not been recorded anywhere to enable us to judge the proportional surface measurements. It is useful, and in these cases, necessary, to have all these measurements and dimensions as the shape of a product can determine its nomenclature. For example, a flat rolled product with the thickness and cross-section of a strip may be more like a sheet than like a strip if its width and length are equal or nearly equal. 11. We must, therefore, remand these cases to the Assistant Collector, the original authority, to provide all the requisite details, before assessing the products. Needless to say, he will record all necessary details while adjudicating. 12. For this purpose, we set aside all the orders of the lower authorities.
-
1988 (5) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seizure, arrest and prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... tem. Hence, the violations of the Customs Act and Import Act as alleged is not established beyond doubt. It is also noteworthy that the Collector has himself accepted the bonafides of the appellant. 88. I, therefore, hold that the goods and the vehicle were not liable to confiscation and the appellant was not liable to penalty. 89. Hence, I set aside the order of the Collector in so far as it relates to the confiscation of the vehicle, the confiscation of the balls for ball point pens and imposition of penalty. 90. Since the vehicle has already been released on payment of redemption fine the department is directed to refund the same. 91. The department is also directed to release the balls for ball point pens and allow the re-export. However, the departmental authorities will be at liberty to take such precautions as may be necessary to ensure that the goods are actually re-exported. 92. The penalty amount is also directed to be refunded forthwith. 93. The Appeal is accepted.
-
1988 (5) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - “Relevant date” for limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e under Rule 173-I is nothing but arithmetical check of the quantification of the duty by the assessee on the basis of already approved classification list and price-list. We do not subscribe to the view that the assessment under S.R.P. prior to the approval of RT-12 Return by the Proper Officer is provisional. In this view of the matter, the provision of Explanation (B)(e) below Section 11 -B of the Act is not applicable to this case, but the provision of clause (f) of Explanation (B) is applicable. 12. The refund claim was submitted by the appellants in this case on 14.7.1982 in respect of differential duty relating to the period from 3.11.1981 to 29.4.1982. As a result, the claim relating to the period beyond the period of six months prior to the date of filing the refund application is barred by limitation. 13. The appeal is allowed in the light of our findings in paragraph 5, but the claim for refund is restricted to six months as indicated in paragraph 12 of this order.
-
1988 (5) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice for recovery of duty erroneously refunded ... ... ... ... ..... ollector) may discover, during the appeal proceedings before him, has been short levied or erroneously refunded, unless a notice of demand to pay is issued to that person within the time-limit of 11 -A. The time-limit of Section 11 -A runs on a tight Schedule - its starting point to its finishing post is rigidly controlled. It must set out from the ldquo relevant date rdquo - no other date is permissible, whether it runs for six months or for five years. The time-limit ldquo specified in Section 11 -A rdquo is not six months it is ldquo six months from the relevant date rdquo . A time-limit counted any other way would not be a ldquo time-limit specified in section 11 -A rdquo . 16. May be we have here a stand-off a stalemate and I can see no way round it. 17. However, as no notice was given to M/s. Universal Radiators within the time-limit specified in Section 11 -A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the refund said to have been erroneously made to them cannot be recovered.
-
1988 (5) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condition of exemption notification not fulfilled ... ... ... ... ..... event of such a breach, the Collector may also order the forfeiture of the security deposited under rule 192 and may also confiscate the excisable goods, and all goods manufactured from such goods in store at the factory rdquo . It is seen under this, duty is required to be paid if the goods obtained at concessional rate of duty are not duly accounted for as having been used for the purpose and in the manner stated in the application for getting the goods at concessional rates unless it can be shown to the proper officer that these have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident during transport from the place of procurement to the packing premises or during handling or in storage. 9. It is not the case of the appellants that the goods were lost or destroyed as set out under Rule 196. Since I have held that the goods had not been used for the purpose of manufacture of fertilizer, duty is to be paid on them under Rule 196. I, therefore, reject the appeal.
-
1988 (5) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... me Court judgment that applies to the facts of the present case is 1984 (17) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.) - Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. It disallows the commission given to agents for procuring orders as distinct from the discount or commission given to actual buyer of the goods. We have earlier allowed the appellants rsquo request for raising additional ground of appeal i.e. deduction of interest on receivables. Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 had held that interest on receivables after removal of goods is deductible from the assessable value. There is no material available on record. Accordingly we allow the appellants rsquo claim of deduction of interest on receivables from the assessable value in principle. The appellants rsquo to file the details of their claim before the Assistant Collector and he will allow the same after due verification. In the result the appeal is partly allowed for interest on receivables only.
-
1988 (5) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... d advocate for the respondents that some of the observations made by the Collector(Appeals), which are sought to be challenged in the instant appeal now, cannot be considered as findings by the said Collector (Appeals) which would be open to challenge in any appeal before the next higher appellate authority. The further fact remains that remand proceedings were actually initiated by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Satara and the appeal against that order under Section 35-E of the Act has already been filed by the department before the Collector (Appeals) who is seized of the matter now. Going into the merits of the issues at this stage by the Tribunal would nullify the appeal of the department before the Collector (Appeals). It would, therefore, be short circuiting the appellate procedure laid down in the Act. 5. For the above reaons, we agree with the learned advocate for the respondents that the instant appeal is not maintainable and hence we dismiss it accordingly.
-
1988 (5) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Actual user licence ... ... ... ... ..... in the goods. We feel that the fine in lieu of confiscation is highly excessive. To meet the ends of justice, we reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs. 1 lakh only (Rupees one lakh only). 11. On the valuation, the appellants were given 10 discount from the original price, since no middleman was involved and 220 volts generators were specifically manufactured for India and after the ban on the import of generators, obviously there were no purchasers and as such the appellant was in a position to negotiate the price. The Ld. Advocate had cited order No. 154/87A in the case of Jay Print Pack (P) Ltd. v. C.C., Bombay. In that case 23 cheaper price was held to be very reasonable as vast Indian market was no longer available to the foreign printing presses due to change in the Import policy. Accordingly, we hold that 10 discount in the present case is very reasonable and the value declared by the appellant should be accepted. 12. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1988 (5) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
manufacture of Plastic shells ... ... ... ... ..... t to the market for being bought and sold. Here all these elements required for the purpose of levy are satisfied. 17. In the light of the facts of this case, following the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. referred to supra, I agree with the plea of the Revenue that the goods are excisable. I, therefore, allow the appeal of the Revenue. I observe that the respondents have made a plea that in case the goods are held chargeable to duty, the benefit of procedure of set off of duty under Rule 56A in respect of duty paid on shells should be allowed to M/s. Universal on whose behalf they are stated to be manufacturing the shells in respect of suitcases etc. manufactured by them. I find that this is a reasonable request and in case they have been substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules notwithstanding the fact that they did not apply for the same earlier, the Revenue should consider the request.
-
1988 (5) TMI 130 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Orders of stay passed by the Collector ... ... ... ... ..... ders of the Collector (Appeals) by which he granted stay of the operation of the orders impugned before him. The Collector (Appeals) did not dispose of the appeals. He only granted stay. 4. The orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) cannot be considered as orders within Section 80A of the Gold (Control) Act. Therefore, the appeals do not lie to the Tribunal against such orders. 5. In the circumstances, we reject all the appeals as not maintainable in law. 6. Since we have rejected the appeals on the ground of maintainability the stay applications arising out of such appeals would not survive for consideration and therefore they are rejected. 7. The Collector if aggrieved by the orders of stay granted by the Collector (Appeals) he should have made applications before the Collector (Appeals) for either modification of the stay orders or expeditious hearing of the appeals. In any case he is ill-advised in filing the appeals before the Tribunal against the interlocutory orders.
-
1988 (5) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture fabrication does not amount to manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... case. In the present case the appellant had got manufactured trusses, trestles, bent pipes, fabricated beams, ducting, benzune columns and raw materials like angles, sheets, plates, channels etc. The same were manufactured from raw materials like channels, angles, HR Sheets, CR Sheets, M.S. plates, rounds etc. We are of the view that conversion of the aforementioned items does not amount to manufacture. The appellant rsquo s case is fully covered by the judgment of the tribunal in the case of Aruna Industries Vishakhapatnam and Others v. C.C.E., Guntur and Others reported in 1986 (25) E.LT. 580. The revenue has also not been able to establish that a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and separate commodity having its own character, name and use has come into existence. The revenue has not been able to discharge this onus. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1988 (5) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... came necessary to call for technical opinion from the Deputy Chief Chemist on 17-10-1986. Nothing prevented the applicant from filing appeal even without such information and if the same was considered relevant, to bring it on record of the appeal by way of additional evidence in accordance with law. The Date Chart shows that the file moved in a routine and casual way leading to further more than three months delay after 8-9-1986, the date when applicant knew that file was not traceable. We do not think that this inordinate delay has been satisfactorily explained or that sufficient cause for condoning the same has been made out. It also does not appear to us that decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra) helps the applicant for condonation of this long delay. We, therefore, reject the application and as a consequence, the Appeal No. 2954/86-C, in respect of which the application was presented, also stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
-
1988 (5) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... rate expression of the law . But as expressed in the passage of LORD STERNDALE and as explained authoritatively by the House of Lords this rule of construction applies only when the earlier enactment is ambiguous i.e., ldquo fairly and equally open to diverse meanings rdquo and the same rule applies even though the later Act contains a provision that it is to be read as one with the earlier Act. It has further been said that it is clearly wrong to construe an unamended section of the earlier Act in the light of amendment made by the later Act in other parts of the earlier Act unless the unamended section is ambiguous i.e. ldquo fairly and equally open to diverse meanings rdquo . 10. It is above principle that has to be applied in the present case also. As pointed out by Shri Jain the earlier Notification No. 172/72 was not ambiguous and dealt with the situation before us properly. It is, therefore, unnecessary to construe the same with reference to the Notification No. 13/82.
........
|
