|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 190 Records
-
1989 (10) TMI 152
... ...
... ... ..... le intended to undergo manufacturing process is supplied to a job worker and that article is returned by the job worker to the supplier, after the article has undergone the intended manufacturing process, on charging only for the job work done by him. rsquo 4. We have considered the arguments. The basic point in this matter is that M .S. Rollers are received by the respondents and are returned to the customers after rubber coating. The grounds of appeal and the arguments of the Ld. JDR do not contradict this position. The existence of manufacture or a process incidental or ancillary to it does not disqualify the goods for the application of the notification. In the circumstances, we hold that M.S. Rollers having been received and having been returned after rubber coating, the activity is covered by the definition of job work as given in the explanation to the notification (Supra). In this view, we find no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. 5. We dismiss this appeal.
-
1989 (10) TMI 151
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he certificate ldquo FOR rdquo Drug Controller and Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan. This certificate on perusal shows that it only certifies that ldquo Sodium Lauryl Sulphate is a pharmaceutical aid and may be used as a wetting agent and emulsifying agent etc. in the fabrication of drug dosage forms like tablets, liquids and ointments. The certificate does not in terms confirm or certify that the goods is a chemical having prophylactic and therapeutic value, nor does it help an inference about its sole or predominant use as drugs. On the other hand, the certificate refers to the goods only as a pharmaceutical aid finding use as wetting or emulsifying agent. Hence, it has to be held that the appellants have not succeeded in making out a case for classification of the goods under Heading 29.01/45(13) as pharmaceutical chemicals. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and the appeal is therefore, rejected.
-
1989 (10) TMI 150
Import - Paper ... ... ... ... ..... notification is involved in the present case. Under the amended notification, ldquo printing and writing paper having a substance by weight of 25 g/m2 and above but not exceeding 180 g/m2 rdquo was exempted. It has not been disputed before us that the imported paper falls within this range of the grammage per square meter. Further, the learned advocate has filed before us in the open Court a copy of the test report of the Indian Institute of Packaging which shows that the sample of the document Raw Base Paper was of 90 g/m . The analysis of the test report also shows that the product passed the test prescribed in the Indian Standard Specification for printing and writing paper. Copies of these papers were also submitted earlier. 6. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any justification to deny the benefit of the exemption notification in respect of this imported paper. Consequently, we uphold the impugned order-in-appeal and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1989 (10) TMI 149
Penalty not imposable ... ... ... ... ..... al proceedings are concerned, these certainly have to be drawn within a reasonable time. In the case when the facts were fully gone into by the authorities and they did not feel that such a course of action as levy of penalty was called for and after the appellants rsquo explanations were accepted and all the facts were before the authorities, and also when in the show cause notice also no specific violation of any rule has been cited warranting levy of the penalty, the penal proceedings drawn are mis-conceived. Inasmuch as, as pointed out by both the sides, the issue had already acquired finality and in the refund proceedings the plea that the total value of the clearances were wrongly declared was not stated to be there, it was not proper for the Assistant Collector to have initiated penal proceedings on the same issue. I hold in the facts and circumstances of the case the levy of penalty is bad in law and accordingly set aside the same. In the result the appeal is allowed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 148
Chilled Cast Iron Rolls ... ... ... ... ..... ed Collector that the importation is hit by Sl. No. 446 of Appendix-3 is not correct. In coming to this conclusion various provisions, definitions and explanations mentioned in the Policy have been discussed by this Tribunal and, therefore, we are of the opinion that a point of law has arisen out of the order passed by this Tribunal in the above matter. That being the position, the same is to be referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Calcutta. In the result, we refer this point of law arising out of order of Tribunal to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Calcutta, under Section 130 (1) of Customs Act, 1962, in the following form ldquo Whether the Chilled Cast Iron Rolls, which were imported by the appellants, are covered by Appendix-10, Clause (4) of 1983-84 Policy, or alternatively by Entry No. 2 of Appendix-10, or whether the Chilled Cast Iron Rolls are covered by Appendix-3, Sl. No. 446 of 1983-84 Policy ? rdquo 5. The Reference Application is allowed in the above terms.
-
1989 (10) TMI 147
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... f the tyres for the purpose of obtaining the finished product. In this view of the matter, therefore, it has to be held that the items are excluded from the purview of benefit of the Notification 217/86 and Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules as equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products are excluded from the purview of these concessions. We observe that the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi cited by the appellants, has only gone into the question of the scope of the wording of Notification 217/86 vis-a-vis Notification 201/79 and has not examined the question whether in terms of the specific exclusions the items provided in Notification 217/86, the appellants rsquo goods stood precluded or otherwise from the benefit of the Notification. In view of above, there is no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 146
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ot disclose sufficient cause. 4. We find that, from the condonation application itself, it is apparent that the Deptt. had initially decided not to contest the order of the Collector (Appeals) and not to file the appeal and subsequently they changed their view and decided to file this appeal. In the meanwhile, the normal period of limitation had expired. From this, it is clear that it was upto Deptt. to keep the matter open and file the appeal in the normal time and the Deptt. has not been able to show sufficient cause as to how it did not avail of that opportunity. On the contrary, a conscious decision had been taken at first not to file the appeal. Subsequently, they have reviewed the decisions. 5. In our opinion, this was not a proper ground and would not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In these circumstances, we see no reason to grant the prayer. We, therefore, dismiss the condonation application. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as time-barred.
-
1989 (10) TMI 145
Exemption not deniable even when goods removed clandestinely ... ... ... ... ..... t. The Special Bench has held that rate of duty was quite independent of the question of taking out a licence or filing a classification list etc. The concessional rate is applicable to all manufacturers who fulfilled the terms of the Notification. Since a specific plea in this regard has been taken by the appellants with reference to the applicability of various Small Scale Industries Notification and entitlement thereto and since the same has not been adverted to much less considered in the impugned order, without expressing any opinion on merits with reference to the applicability of the various Exemption Notifications and leaving the issue to be decided by the adjudicating authority, we set aside the impugned order and remit the issue for re-consideration by the lower authority as per law in the light of our observations and the contentions canvassed before us, in accordance with law and in the light of the evidence available on record. The appeal is accordingly remanded.
-
1989 (10) TMI 144
... ...
... ... ..... ng on 4th October, 1989 and the same may also be taken up for hearing today. Shri C.V. Durghayya, the learned JDR has got no objection to the request of Sh. L. Ramamirthan, Dy. General Manager (Finance) and requests that first the stay applications be taken up for hearing. We heard Shri Durghayya, the learned JDR and Shri L. Ramamirthan, Dy. General Manager (Finance). Shri L. Ramamirthan has pleaded for the rejection of the stay applications. After hearing both the sides and keeping in view the earlier judgments of the Tribunal in a similar type of stay applications we do not find any merits in the stay applications. The same are rejected. Now we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. For the detailed reasons given in para No. 4 above in Appeal Nos. C/329/88-B2, C/393/88-B2, C/394/88-B2, C/1855/88-B2 and C/1856/88-B2 we do not find any merit in these two appeals, the same are dismissed. In the result the above captioned two stay applications and seven appeals are dismissed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 136
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... y Note, under Heading 84.65, it has been laid down that the Heading includes among other things, oil seal rings. Therefore, from a perusal of the catalogue, and on a consideration of the scope of the Heading 84.65-CTA, we hold that the Collector (Appeals) had come to the correct conclusion that the goods imported are correctly classifiable under Heading 84.65 and in this view of the matter, the fact that the suffixes are different in regard to part numbers will not be material and since we have seen that the use of the oil seal is not confined to internal combustion piston engines only, classification thereof under Heading 84.06 will not also be appropriate. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) which is well founded and accordingly, the appeal is rejected. The Cross Objection filed by the respondents is rejected as mis-conceived since they are not aggrieved with any part of the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals).
-
1989 (10) TMI 135
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... t, we find that the vessel was originally imported at Bombay for which IGM was also filed on 6-5-1957 on arriving of the vessel on 4-5-1957. Following the ratio of the Calcutta and Bombay High Court above cited, the rate of duty should be that which was prevalent in 1957. We find that at that time, there was a total un-conditional exemption available to all Ocean going vessels in terms of India, Com. D.O. 484 of 21st June, 1923. This being the case, it will not be correct in law to seek to apply the provisions of Notification 262-Cus. which was issued on 11-10-1958, subsequent to the date of arrival of the vessel in question at Bombay Customs. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order and in this view of the matter, the appeal is rejected. The Cross Objection filed by the respondents is misconceived since they are not aggrieved by any part of the order of Collector (Appeals) and as such, is dismissed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 134
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... uced to show that these have been imported against orders for clasps for use in leather industry. Heading 83.08 of CTA covers ldquo clasps frames with clasps, buckles, buckle-clasps, hooks, eyes, eyelets and the like, of base metal, of a kind used for clothing, footwear, awnings, handbags, travel goods, or other made-up articles.... rdquo A perusal of the sample from the consignment shows that the goods are metal fittings of the clip type for loose leaf binders, which item is covered under Heading 83.05 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As such, the goods fall outside the scope of Heading 83.08 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and in this view of the matter, they are also not eligible for exemption under Notification 224/85 which is applicable to goods used in leather industries whereas metal fittings loose leaf binders imported cannot be considered as such. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authority and the appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1989 (10) TMI 133
... ...
... ... ..... proceeded on the basis that crude asbestos is also asbestos fibre but there is no basis for such assumption as can be seen from the technical literature discussed above. So, the contention of the appellant that asbestos raw is not covered by T.1.22F, is correct. 19. The question may arise that if the lsquo goods rsquo , in question, do not fall under T.I. 22F, then, under which T.I., they can be covered? T.I.68 is the residuary entry and any goods which are not classifiable under any entry are, in normal course, to be classified under T.I.68. But, neither side has advanced any arguments on this point. The Revenue has also not sought classification under this entry. So, we refrain from expressing any final opinion regarding correct classification. However authorities may take their own view and resort to legal course open to them, if any. So, we pass the following final order 20. The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1989 (10) TMI 132
Redemption fine and penalty when reducible ... ... ... ... ..... of M/ rsquo s. Prabhat General Turpene we reduce the fine from Rs. 2,65,000/- to Rs. 1,32,500/- and penalty from Rs. 1,30,000/-to Rs. 65,000/- and in the case of Associated Traders we reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 2,65,000/- to Rs. 1,32,500/- and penalty from Rs. 1,30,000/- to Rs. 65,000/-. Whereas in the case of Sarvodya Resin Works we reduce the fine from Rs. 1,60,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- and penalty from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. We do not accept the arguments of Shri R.D. Suvarna, the learned Advocate who had appeared on behalf of the Appollo International that there was no justification for the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant in this case is the indenting agent had full role in the importation. To meet the ends of justice we reduce the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, except for the modifications made above the appeals are otherwise rejected. The Revenue Authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1989 (10) TMI 131
Classification List ... ... ... ... ..... e. Further, the appellants submitted trade opinions from four company rsquo s before the Collector (Appeals). Although Collector (Appeals) has mentioned about these trade opinions, but he has not given any findings as to why he has not accepted these opinions. He has not discussed the point of trade parlance agitated before him by the appellants. For these two reasons the impugned order should deserve to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the lower authority for re-decision. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals) for re-decision after considering the trade opinions submitted by the appellants and giving his detailed findings thereon. A copy of the Deputy Chief Chemist rsquo s report should also be made available to the appellants before the matter is re-decided by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. He should also give necessary personal hearing to the appellants before the matter is decided afresh.
-
1989 (10) TMI 130
Goods - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... manufacture and clear from their works - (1) Idlers (2) Vibrating Screens (3) Sherwan Feeders (4) Conveyor Pulley (5) Wire Screen Cloth Panels (6) Misc. Conveyor Mechanicals (7) Wagon Tippler (8) Crushers (9) Stacker/Reclaimer (10) Ore. Coal, Preparation Equipment. Classification lists do not indicate, nor do the R.T. 12 returns for that matter, that the appellants were supplying raw materials to the various manufacturers and getting some goods manufactured from the latter on job basis. Similarly, the R.T. 12 returns and the accompanying gate passes also do not give the above information. The plea of limitation, therefore fails. 12. However, in view of our findings on the two issues involved on merits of the appeal no liability of duty arises at all against the appellants. The goods which they have manufactured in their works alone are liable to duty and this duty has already been paid admittedly. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1989 (10) TMI 129
Sugar - Excess Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... 8, it is clear that the Bombay High Court had upheld the application of Trade Notice, under which the party had given an undertaking and had taken advantage under the Trade Notice, which had acted as an estoppel and hence the Bombay High Court had held that Rule 10 had not applicability. In this case, there had been no Trade Notice as on the date of crediting the sums in PLA Account nor the appellant had given any undertaking nor the Revenue had sought for enforcing such an undertaking. Hence we have to reject the contention of Shri L.C. Chakraborthy, the learned Departmental Representative. 8. We respectfully follow the ruling of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v.Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.) and the ruling in Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi 1986 (26) E.L.T. 583 . Following these rulings, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the lower authorities. Appeal allowed.
-
1989 (10) TMI 127
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... o to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The respondents contested the demand beyond six months on ground of limitation. Collector (Appeals) has not given any findings regarding applicability of longer time limit under the said proviso as he decided the ca in favour of the respondents. As we have decided the classification in favour of the Revenue, the case is remanded to Collector (Appeals) on the limited question of limitation which he should decide after giving necessary opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents. The Revenue rsquo s Appeals No. E/1883/85-C and E/2031/85-C are allowed subject to remand on this limited issue and the impugned orders are set aside. 20. We have held in paragraph 12 (supra) that under the new Tariff effective from 1-3-1986, the products are classifiable under Heading ldquo 4818.90 - Other rdquo . We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders-in-appeal and allow Appeals No. E/1468/88-C and E/1986/88-C in favour of Revenue.
-
1989 (10) TMI 126
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... yst and Activated Carbon is not sustainable and hence the order of the lower authorities in respect of the said demand is set aside and the appeal allowed to that extent. So far as the demand for duty of Rs. 32,102.00 is concerned, the same relates to set-off of duty paid of five materials. We have already held that set-off in respect of duty paid on Phosphoric Acid, Nickel Catalyst and Activated Carbon is admissible under the Notification. But since the question of admissibility of set-off of duty on Tin Tops .and Unprinted paperpolly is required to be re-examined by the lower authorities, we set aside that part of the order of the lower authority which relates to the demand of Rs. 32,102.00. The matter relating to this demand is remanded to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for de novo examination in the light of our foregoing observations and the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. 7. The two appeals and the COD application are disposed of in the light of the above.
-
1989 (10) TMI 125
Dutiability - Marketability essential ... ... ... ... ..... and the same were, therefore, returned to the respondent company intact. From non-communication of the results of samples drawn by the department in these circumstances no adverse inference to the department can be drawn. 34. Test report to Sreeram Test House loses much of its force and validity, despite the reputed character of the Test House, because the samples have been drawn in the absence of the departmental representatives. It is, therefore, a fit case, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority and direct him to draw the samples and get it tested by the departmental Chemical Examiner/Chief Chemist as the case may be and decide the case afresh in the light of the opinion of the experts. 35. Accordingly, I remand the case for de novo decision in the light of my observations above. 36. In view of the majority decision. Appeal No. E/214/86-C is also dismissed. Appeal No. E/1672/86-C is also dismissed as not pursued.
........
|
