|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 231 Records
-
1989 (12) TMI 210
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... oes not comprise of sub-assembles but has considered only those items as detailed in the inspection letter of D. G. T. D. The Addl. Collector has not separated the values of other items while imposing the redemption fine and the Counsel is justified in making a grievance of the common redemption fine imposed against both the bills of entry in the common order referred in supra. Therefore, viewing from all these aspects and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires to be remanded for de novo consideration by setting aside the impugned order. The appellants are entitled to rebut the inspection report of D. G. T. D. and also to place materials to show that the items of sub-assembles of Main drive system comprises of all the imported items as described in the licence. As the import is of 1986, the Addl. Collector shall endeavour to dispose off the matter expeditiously within four months from the receipt of this order. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (12) TMI 209
Ownership of Contraband goods ... ... ... ... ..... 7, instead of quoting as Antiquities and Treasure Act, 1972, does not vitiate the order in question. 26. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that on this ground no prejudice is caused to the appellant and it cannot be said that the show cause notice is invalid on account of this fact, and more particularly, in view of the fact that the appellant himself pleaded guilty to the charges before the learned Magistrate, under the latter Act. Hence Point No. (iv) is held accordingly and we do not see any cogent reason for taking a different view in this regard as was canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant. 27. Point No. (v) In view of the above findings which we have arrived at on Point Nos. (i) to (iv) we find that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order. The imposition of the penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 in the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be in any way severe. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as being one without any merits.
-
1989 (12) TMI 208
Adjudication - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... bt in our mind as to the genuineness of this case. 28. After going through the entire evidence, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the lower authority. As has been made out from this case, we see that the officers were having information with regard to Sh. Sohanlal Narula only. No information had been received with regard to Sh. Chander Kumar, appellant, carrying to the house of Sh. Sohanlal smuggled watches, as is very evident from the show cause notice and the pleadings narrated in the order-in-original read alongwith the statement of Superintendent and Inspectors. The officers have come in for severe criticism in this case. This criticism is fair and well founded, as the appellant appears to have been framed up in this case. 29. We are constrained to set aside the personal penalty imposed on the appellants in this case. If the penalty and redemption fine have been paid, the same shall be reimbursed within two months from the receipt of this order. Appeal allowed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 207
... ...
... ... ..... gards the confession in the second statement referred to and relied upon by the learned SDR, I only find mere knowledge on the part of the appellant about the storage of contraband goods by other persons, which he did not disclose to the authorities on grounds of fear. This mere awareness or knowledge on the part of the appellant with reference to the offence committed by others, would not ipso facto make for an offence of abetment under law and something more by way of evidence is required. Presumably this is the reason why the Board itself has substantially reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant. Therefore on considering the entire evidence on record, I am inclined to hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt arising in the facts and circumstances of the case and I give the appellant benefit of doubt and exonerate him from the charge of abetment and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1989 (12) TMI 206
... ...
... ... ..... however, the duty on some yarn has already been paid and the demands include the same, the appellants are at liberty to claim the refund thereof after discharging the duty liability arising out of these appeals, which claim will no doubt be considered, by the departmental authorities in accordance with law. 32. In finally summing up, only in the case of M/s. Ahmedabad Advance Mills (A. No. E/366/89) and in the case of M/s. Maheshwari Mills Ltd. (A. No. 367/89) we hold that part of the demands based on the RT-12 returns (Rs. 8,23,180.60 in the case of M/s. Ahmedabad Advance Mills and Rs. 7,14,998.40 in the case of M/s. Maheshwari Mills Ltd.) are not enforceable and are required to be deducted from the demands confirmed by the authorities below. In the case of Rohit Mills, the Department can recover the duty demanded, subject to the observations made by us in para 29 above with regard to demand for June, 82. But for these modifications the appeals filed are otherwise rejected.
-
1989 (12) TMI 205
MODVAT Credit - Deemed Credit on Iron and Steel ... ... ... ... ..... e been superseded. In this view of the matter, we hold that even if the goods have been received from a manufacturer availing of exemption under Notfn. No. 208/83, deemed credit in terms of the Government of India rsquo s order dated 7-4-1986 would be available. This order only contemplates purchases from outside, which can even be from the manufacturer as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ahura Chemical Products cited by the learned advocate. The Supreme Court in that case has clearly held that purchases from another manufacturer can also be regarded as purchases from the open market. In view of this position, unless the Government of India specifically bars the extension of deemed credit in respect of goods wholly exempted from duty as has been done in order dated 20-5-1988 deemed modvat credit at the specified rate prescribed in the relevant order dated 7-4-1986 is required to be extended. We, therefore, allow all the four appeals with consequential relief.
-
1989 (12) TMI 204
‘Packing’ or ‘Wrapping’ paper used for packing other varieties of paper ... ... ... ... ..... f duty on the weight of the wrapping or packing paper - firstly, at the time when such paper was cleared within the factory for the purpose of packing other varieties of paper and secondly, when the Department sought to recover duty on the value of such paper along with the duty leviable on the value of the packing paper. Though the specific Rule 56A may not have been cited before the Assistant Collector, the rule was cited before the Collector (Appeals) in support of the claim that duty should not have been recovered twice on the packing or wrapping paper. Rule 56A, in a manner of speaking, also serves to mitigate the effect of multi-stage excise levy. In the context of this position, coupled with the position that no new facts are required to be investigated, we do not think that these two decisions have application to the instant case. 11. In the light of the above discussion, we cannot fault the impugned order. In the result, we uphold the order and dismiss these appeals.
-
1989 (12) TMI 203
... ...
... ... ..... save limitation. 8. From the above, we are convinced that it has become a settled law that short endorsement made on RT-12 Return cannot save limitation under Section 11A, unless they are followed up by proper show cause notice issued under Section 11A. 9. Shri K.M. Mondal contended that the endorsement on RT-12 returns are giving reasons and they could be construed as show cause notices. Non mentioning of Section 11A cannot vitiate the notice. We have carefully gone through the endorsements. We find that though reasons for raising the demand are given, it cannot be construed as a notice, because no opportunity for show cause is being given and it is a direction for payment and is in the nature of a direct demand. 10. Following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court and the decision of the CEGAT Special Bench lsquo C rsquo in the case of Vipul Dyes Chemicals Ltd., we hold that the appeals filed by the department are not sustainable and accordingly we dismiss the same.
-
1989 (12) TMI 202
Plans’ includes ‘drawings’ and ‘designs’ ... ... ... ... ..... ial. 10. In the circumstances, we hold that the goods in question were eligible for exemption from levy of auxiliary duty of customs in terms of Customs Notification 112/87, dated 1-3-1987. 11. The Counsel for the appellants made certain submissions about a portion of the value of the goods being attributable to the cost of technical know-how which went behind the drawings. We did not allow him to raise this ground because it had not been urged before the lower authorities and the factual basis for raising such a ground was not available in the record. Similarly, we did not permit him to argue on the submission that lsquo designs rsquo and lsquo drawings rsquo are not ldquo goods rdquo chargeable to customs duty for the reason that this would have involved examining the vires and validity of the Tariff Entry which is beyond the Tribunal rsquo s competence. 12. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1989 (12) TMI 201
Adjudication - Personal hearing ... ... ... ... ..... e denied the opportunity to submit the case on merits and the order has been passed ex-parte, it requires consideration by the original authority. The documents now produced and submissions made before us, were not before the original authority and as such, we are not in a position to give a finding on it. We are constrained to remand this matter to the Collector again to adjudicate de-novo the entire proceedings by taking on record the entire technical literature, arguments and such other evidence that would be produced by them to substantiate their case. The Collector may also take into consideration the literature produced by the Departmental Representative before us and review the matter again with regard to excisability, marketability, time-bar and such other matters that will be raised by the appellants at the time of hearing. Opportunity is granted to the appellants to put forth their evidence on the date fixed for hearing by the Collector. Appeal is allowed by remand.
-
1989 (12) TMI 200
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ction Notes and Chapter Notes in the Customs Tariff Act are a part of the statutory tariff and thus relevant in the matter of classification of goods under the Customs Tariff. The relevant headings in the tariff have to be interpreted and applied in the light of Section Notes and Chapter Notes which are statutory and binding like the headings themselves. These. Section Notes and Chapter Notes sometimes expand and sometimes restrict the scope of certain headings. In other words the scheme of the Customs Tariff Act is to determine the coverage of the respective headings in the light of the Section Notes and Chapter Notes. In this sense, the Section Notes and Chapter Notes have an overriding force on the respective headings. The goods in question do not specify the definition of lsquo strip rsquo . The judgments cited by the learned CDR do not help him. We uphold the findings of the Collector (Appeals). We do not find any merit in Revenue rsquo s appeals. The same are dismissed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 199
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... e has classified the product under Heading 4009.92 as piping of vulcanised rubber designed to perform the function of conveying air, gas or liquid. 15. The Permaline Fire Hose manufactured by the appellants being a textile hose coated with rubber, is correctly classifiable under Heading 59.07 and not under Heading 4009.92. 16. It would also be relevant to point out that even the Department has viewed that the more appropriate classification of textile hose pipes woven on circular looms and impregnated with rubber would appear to be under Heading 59.07 of the Central Excise Tariff and this position is classified under Trade Notice No. 119/89 dt. 18th July, 1989. 17. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the correct classification of the appellants rsquo product i.e. Permaline Fire Hose is under Heading 59.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. We set aside the impugned order dated 3-10-1988 and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
-
1989 (12) TMI 198
Import - Misdeclaration as to value ... ... ... ... ..... be of no avail for the appellants to plead that they have satisfied the actual user condition since they hold SSI certificate or to take an entirely new point in the submissions before us that the item is not for import only by actual users. In the circumstances, the import required a valid licence which the appellants did not possess and accordingly, the order confiscating the goods as an unauthorised import is correct in law and is upheld. As regards personal penalty, since the appellant was a proprietory firm whose proprietor has since expired, we are inclined to hold that the penalty need not be sustained and is, therefore, set aside having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also submitted before us that in the event of the confiscation being upheld, the duty amount already deposited by the appellants may be refunded which we feel is a reasonable request and the Customs House may take action accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1989 (12) TMI 197
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... f) read with chapter note 2 of Chapter 24. 20. Learned DR has of course mentioned that sale/purchase of stalks/stems and dust itself shows that they were marketable but when such products were, in the facts and circumstances shown above classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco and although excisable, carried nil rate of duty. Therefore, no question of liability to duty arises and no offence is involved in merely dealing with them. 21. To put it differently, in order to establish its case the Department was required to show that the product did attract 24.04.90. But the Department has not succeeded in doing so. There is no report of any trade enquiry or any other material or evidence before us which will enable us to conclude that the material question, attracted the 2404.90 and was liable to duty. In the circumstances, Department rsquo s contentions remain unsubstantiated whereas the appellant rsquo s submissions are found to be plausible. 22. We, therefore, accept the appeals.
-
1989 (12) TMI 196
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... heir classification list as ldquo coated glassine paper rdquo (see para 1 of the order). 17. In considering the classification of treated paper or converted paper under Item 17(1), the predominance or otherwise of paper does not, in our view, have any relevance. In Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur V. Krishna Carbon Paper 1988 (37) E.L.T. 480 (S.C.), the Supreme Court held that carbon paper - a paper coated generally on one side with a pressure transferable pigmented layer - fell under Item 17(2) of the Tariff, as it stood between 1976 and 1982 (prior to the amendments effected in 1982) and not in residuary Item 68. We are of the opinion that the principle of this judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and that the two products in question fall for classification under Item 17(1) of the Schedule and, as converted types of paper, were eligible for duty exemption in terms of Notification 63/82 dated 28-2-1982. 18. In view of this, we reject the appeal.
-
1989 (12) TMI 195
MODVAT Credit - Iron & Steel ... ... ... ... ..... superseded. In this view of the matter, we hold that even if the goods have been received from a manufacturer availing of exemption under Notification No. 208/83, deemed credit in terms of the Government of India rsquo s order dated 7-4-1986 would be available. This order only contemplates purchases from outside, which can even be from the manufacturer as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ahura Chemical Products cited by the learned advocate. The Supreme Court in that case has clearly held that purchases from another manufacturer can also be regarded as purchases from the open market. In view of this position, unless the Government of India specifically bars the extension of deemed credit in respect of goods wholly exempted from duty as has been done in order dated 20-5-1988 deemed modvat credit at the specified rate prescribed in the relevant order dated 7-4-1986 is required to be extended. We, therefore, allow all the four appeals with consequential relief.
-
1989 (12) TMI 194
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 39.20 of the Indian Tariff Schedule, however, does not specify vulcanised fibre sheets in terms. On the other hand, the Schedule specifies lsquo primary forms rsquo of vulcanised fibre under heading 39.13. We have seen that sheets are one of the primary forms of vulcanised fibre. In this context, it is also interesting to note that the specific entry for vulcanised fibre under heading 39.13 got deleted as a result of the amendments made by the Finance Bill, 1988. However, we do not wish to dilate further on this and express any opinion on the classification of vulcanised fibre after the changes brought about by the Finance Bill, 1988. 14. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that it has to be held, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that vulcanised fibre sheets fall under heading 39.13 (sub-heading 3913.30) of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 15. We modify the impugned order to the above extent and allow the present appeal.
-
1989 (12) TMI 193
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... of filing of the appeal, the suppliers were not inclined to accept the goods. It may also be mentioned here that it is not on account of vis major that the implementation of the order has become impossible. It is purely on account of some inter-se arrangements between the applicants and the suppliers, who are not the party before us, that the situation has cropped up. We appreciate the difficulty but when the law does not provide for any exercise of any inherent power, the Tribunal cannot now consider the prayer. 15. The modification sought for by the applicants obviously is in the nature of reviewing our earlier order, as the order has to be read as composite one and cannot be bifurcated in the way as is submitted by the learned advocate, and any modification thereon of the nature as pleaded by the applicants would tantamount to the review of the same. 16. Under these circumstances, the miscellaneous application filed by the applicants cannot be entertained and is rejected.
-
1989 (12) TMI 192
Exemption to S.S.I. Units - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... e concerned investigating officers should be called to question as to why they did not pursue the investigation further to bring out the facts as to the nature of the operations actually carried out particularly with the proprietor of M/s. Manohara Match Works and the various workers who were employed for doing the work in the three units. It is incumbent on the authorities to elicit all the facts through the investigation with a view to ensure that no evader of duty escapes for want of proper follow up investigation to get at the depth of the matter as also that no innocent person is subjected to unnecessary avoidable procee rsquo dings. In the present case we hold there has been a total failure on the part of the authorities in the matter of investigation and charges have been framed based on assumptions and presumptions. We, therefore, hold that the lower authority rsquo s order is bad in law and we set aside the same. The appeals of the appellants are, therefore, allowed.
-
1989 (12) TMI 191
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of Section 11A, which is the statutory provision for recovery of any duty - either short-levy or non-levy or duty taken erroneously as proforma or MODVAT credit. This is the view taken by the South Regional Bench with regard to the recovery of erroneous credit taken under Rule 56A and also the prima facie view taken by this Bench with regard to the recovery of erroneous MODVAT credit. Erroneous MODVAT credit, though could be demanded under Rule 57-1, is to be within the purview of the time limits laid down under Section 11A and cannot go beyond the time limit laid down therein. The impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is therefore, correct in law. We, therefore, reject the appeal of the Department. Since the Collector (Appeals) has already directed that the papers be placed before the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-11, he is to take a view on the question of applicability of extended period laid down in Section 11A and not in the facts and circumstances of the case.
........
|
