Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 359 Records
-
1991 (3) TMI 271 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit - Validity for duty paid components gone outside the factory and returned ... ... ... ... ..... 3H, it is not even required to be subject to any process it can even be for their own use. 4. After hearing both the sides, I find that the undisputed facts are that the components as well as the final product are covered by MODVAT scheme. Duty has been paid on these components. Merely because they have gone outside on payment of duty and returned, they cannot cease to be notified goods eligible for MODVAT credit. It is also pleaded that because of the consignee rsquo s refusal to take the delivery of the goods, the lsquo ownership continues to rest with them. Explanation to Rule 57A also covers inputs lying within the factory and used by them. Even Rule 173H (as pointed out by Shri Arya) indicates that the goods brought back can be utilised by them for their own use. In view of the facts as above, I do not find any justification in upholding the contention of the authorities below. I, therefore, allow the appeal with consequential relief by way of extension of Modvat credit.
-
1991 (3) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... re, fails and is accordingly dismissed. 17. In view of the above discussion and judicial pronouncements, I am of the view that the letter dated 8th December, 1977 cannot be treated as a show cause notice. The appellant had a Central Excise Licence dated 31st October, 1977. In the show cause notice also there is no allegation of suppression. Accordingly, I hold that there was no suppression or wilful mis-statement. I agree with the conclusion of the learned Judicial Member. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The matter may be placed before the regular bench for passing appropriate orders. (HARISH CHANDER) VICE PRESIDENT March 20,1991 This order may be sent for publication. (HARISH CHANDER) VICE-PRESIDENT 20-3-1991 FINAL ORDER In the light of the majority opinion, the demand in the present instance was barred by time. The appeal is allowed setting aside the orders of the lower authorities. (S.L. Peeran) (G. Sankaran) Member (Judicial) President New Delhi Dated 26-3-1991.
-
1991 (3) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Engines Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 334 (Bom.). In the said case it was held by the Hon rsquo ble High Court that the demand notice dated 16-10-1978 was to be limited to clearance of goods from 23-9-1978 onwards, as the decision to treat thrust washers and wrapped bushes as thin walled bearings was communicated to the assessee on 23-9-1978. In view of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (supra), we are to follow the Supreme Court judgment in preference to the judgment of Bombay High Court. 9. In the light of the above findings, we uphold the classification as decided by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order, but so far as the demand for differential duty is concerned his order is set aside and the appeal allowed to the extent that the demand for duty should be limited to six months prior to the issue of the show cause notice dated 20-5-1983.
-
1991 (3) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... es are included there is no reason why the lighting equipment and other structural fittings which are used in the factory in which the goods are produced would not have to be allowed the benefit of the input duty relief under the MODVAT scheme. Going by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court cited supra, it has to be concluded that the credit has to be allowed only in respect of such of those inputs which are used in the process of manufacture and which go directly into the manufacturing stream by themselves or are used in the manufacture of materials which go into the manufacturing stream resulting in the manufacture of the end product. The parts of the machines which produce the finished goods do not pass this criterion and in that view of the matter we hold that the appellants have rightly been denied the MODVAT credit in relation to chipper knives. We, therefore, find no reasons to depart from our findings above. In the result the appeal is rejected.
-
1991 (3) TMI 267 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Export duty on Mica ... ... ... ... ..... aid Notification to the Mixture of ldquo processed Mica Powder rdquo and ldquo Mica Flakes of 2 mesh and above but below 6 mesh rdquo the entry would have been worded accordingly in the Notification itself as has been done while describing the goods at Sl. No. 5, as stated above. Therefore, construing the Notification as it stood at the relevant time it is clear that the benefit of the Nil rate of duty given in the Table attached to the said Notification could not be extended to the subject goods. The Literature cited by the appellants, as above, also does not change the complex of the case. The other case of Union of India v. TISCO, AIR 1975 SC 769 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 439) (SC), also does not improve the case of the appellants, as in the instant case it is an admitted fact that ldquo processed Mica Powder rdquo and ldquo Mica Flakes rdquo of 2 mesh and above but below 6 mesh are two different varieties of Mica. 12. In the result we reject the appeal being devoid of any merit.
-
1991 (3) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty - Warehoused goods ... ... ... ... ..... ht for recovery of duty as per Section 72(l)(b) of the Act. In this case, the proper officer did not invoke Section 72(l)(b) of the Act. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the goods continued to be warehoused goods and the rate of duty will be as on the date the goods were removed from the warehouse. Therefore, the above cited ruling will not be applicable to the facts of this case. 9. A some-what similar question came up for consideration in the case of C.B.S. Gramophone Records and Tapes India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay in Appeal No. 2134/89-C (Order No. 129/91-C, dated 7-2-1991) in which this Bench has held that the rate of duty has to be calculated as on the date of removal of goods from the warehouse as per Section 15(l)(b) of the Act even though the removal took place after the expiry of the warehousing period. The ratio of this ruling is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case also. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... risdiction. 14. The High Court rsquo s order is reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 651 (Madras). 15. In so far as the Tribunal rsquo s Public Notice 4/86, dated 14-10-1986, I find that this does not help the appellant rsquo s case inasmuch as the proviso under reference takes away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal only in respect of these orders which are passed by the Collector (Appeals). In other words the appeal against the orders of Collectors and Addl. Collectors, even though they may relate to cases of loss of goods in transit, processing or storage still lie to the Tribunal and there is no doubt or dispute in this respect. 16. In view of the above position, I hold that the instant case being a case of loss during storage, and the impugned order having been passed by Collector (Appeals) it was hit by the proviso and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this matter. 17. As such the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 18. The Registry is directed to return the papers.
-
1991 (3) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... quested that since the Delhi Custom House had confirmed that it was accepting the ex-factory price indicated in the World Car Catalogue and was permitting deduction of 15 on account of trade discount from such price as also a deduction on account of VAT, there was no reason why the appellant rsquo s car should not be re-assessed to duty in terms of this practice. Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned Departmental Representative did not object to deduction on account of VAT, but stated that the rate of VAT prevalent in 1975 was not known. 3. We have considered the submissions and perused the records of the case. We accept the prayer of the appellant for re-assessment of his car in accordance with the practice of the Delhi Custom House to take the ex-factory price given in the World Car Catalogue and allow the deductions account of trade discount and VAT. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of assessment of the lower authorities is set aside with consequential relief, if any.
-
1991 (3) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... port this view. As regards the rest of the items in the Invoice, they are not conventional 2 piece Snap-fasteners but consist of 4 parts and if once used they cannot be retrieved without causing serious damage to them. When fixed in a particular fashion the ring like piece is visible and when fixed in patterns they can import attractiveness to the article on which they are fixed. The appellants showed certain leather purses on which such snap fasteners have been fixed in a decorating fashion. The lower authority rsquo s plea that the impugned goods have no decorative value is therefore not acceptable. rdquo The said findings, as aforesaid, run counter to the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Ashish and Co., supra. 9. In the result, we allow both the appeals and set aside the impugned Order -in-Appeal and restore the two Orders-in-Original No. S8/399/86-Gr.B. dated 6-10-1986 and S8/400/86-Gr.B. dated 13-10-1986, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras.
-
1991 (3) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... reasoning given by the learned Collector in his order but by the fact that the item lsquo Cyclophosphamide for injection rsquo is chargeable with nil rate of duty under Chapter 99. The importer had sought for relief on this ground also as is evident from the reading of the refund claim and the grounds of appeal filed before the Collector which has been produced before us for perusal. 11. The same analogy will apply to the imported Item 5 - Fluorouracil U.S.P. It is a bulk drug and raw material and not in the form of medicine for direct administration as anti-cancer drug which alone is entitled for benefit under Chapter 99 of Customs Tariff, 1986. Item 18 of Chapter 99 refers to 5 - Fluorouracil capsules and injections which are in ready to use condition and not to raw materials and bulk drugs. Applying the ratio of the ruling given in the case of Khandelwal Laboratories, the findings of the lower authorities have to be upheld and appeals to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Solvent Ether IP ... ... ... ... ..... , therapeutic or prophylactic properties. In our view, a substance need not necessarily, and inevitably, possess these properties to be so called. It is a matter of common knowledge that surgery is a form of treatment of certain diseases. It is also a matter of common knowledge that most surgical procedures are undertaken only after anaesthetising the concerned part of the body with a suitable anaesthetic. We do not, therefore, see any logic in saying that an anaesthetic used in surgical treatment of diseases cannot be said to be a substance used in the treatment of diseases. In this view of the matter, we hold that the Solvent Ether, manufactured by the appellants, was eligible for duty exemption in terms of Notification 104/82 as amended by 197/82. 5. In the above view of the matter, the other question of limitation becomes academic and need not be considered. 6. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1991 (3) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Caesium Pellets not a consumable store but component part ... ... ... ... ..... y precise criterion as to what should be deemed to be a consumable item and what should be deemed to be not a consumable item for the purpose of the notification. Obviously, each case will have to be considered on its merits. In view of the facts set out earlier, we are of the opinion that the subject caesium pellets cannot properly be regarded as consumable items but as component parts or spare parts or accessories. 7. The Collector (Appeals) has placed reliance on Customs Notification 64/88 dated 1-3-1988. This notification is on the same line as Notification 279/83. As the appellant-Collector has pointed out, this notification does not, in terms, set out any list of goods indicating inter alia that chemicals falling under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff Schedule are covered by it, but, as we have held earlier, Caesium Pellets are not to be regarded as consumable items for the purpose of Notification No. 279/83. 8. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the instant appeal.
-
1991 (3) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... as noted earlier, there is no dispute that the duty paid inputs were received, intimations in form D3 were submitted to the proper officer and the inputs were used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods. The very fact that the Government thought it fit, though in 1985, to empower the Collector to relax the requirements inter aila of paragraph 5C of the notification only goes to show that the Government also was convinced of the practical difficulties in complying with the letter of the procedure. It is a well settled proposition, and requires no citation, that lapses of procedure should not be allowed to defeat the ends of substantive justice. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Assistant Collector was right in dropping the proceedings against the appellants and the Collector (Appeals) was in error in reviving the demand though only for a period of six months. As such, we set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1991 (3) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ce of this order to the Registry within eight weeks from today. It is further ordered that during the pendency of the appeal, the applicants shall keep the bank guarantee alive and if necessary, to be renewed from time to time and intimate the Collector as well as the Tribunal regularly. We further order that if the applicants comply with the terms of this order, the revenue authorities shall not pursue the recovery proceedings for the balance duty and penalty amount. In case the applicants fail to comply with the terms of this order, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. It is further ordered that during the pendency of the appeal, the applicants shall not alienate and put to further encumbrance any immovable or movable assets except stock-in-trade without the prior permission of the Tribunal. However, the applicants can put to further encumbrance for raising the bank guarantee amount as mentioned in this order. The matter is listed for mention on 29th May, 1991.
-
1991 (3) TMI 257 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ellants indicating that they have fulfilled the export obligation and, therefore, their undertaking given to that office has been cancelled. The DEEC forwarded by the appellants to the office of the JCCI and E was retained in the said office. Copy of the DEEC has not been brought on record by the appellants which could substantiate their submission. In any case, as pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative for the Department, this is a new claim which was never before the lower authorities and it would, therefore, not be desirable for us to grant that benefit at this stage which requires enquiry into new facts. The appellants would, however, be at liberty to file their claim under Section 75 of the Customs Act before the concerned Customs authorities who may then decide their claim in accordance with law. 7. In the light of our findings on the main issue involved whether these ceramic seals are entitled to the benefit of Notification 117/78, we reject the appeal.
-
1991 (3) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... he orders of this Tribunal as there is no doubt that ldquo the broad approach to be adopted being that in the first instance the manufacturer has to take a stand with regard to a certain type of input. The department has to either accept that stand or to contest the same and depending on the facts and circumstances of the each case, the same has to be decided whether that input falls in any one of the exceptions rdquo . In the cases before us, the manufacturers have taken a definite stand with regard to the inputs in question and the department has contested the claim. Therefore the Tribunal was required to interpret and apply notifications and announce the orders. 5. As far as we can see the department has not been able to show how the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgments could help their cause in these circumstances. We see no reason to differ from the orders already passed and cited above which admittedly apply to the present cases. Accordingly the appeals are rejected.
-
1991 (3) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... al rsquo s decision in Collector of Customs v. Hindustan Motor Limited reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 400. This judgment of the Tribunal relies inter alia Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Tata Yodogawa Limited and Another reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 SC. 2. Having considered the pleas advanced on both sides, we are not impressed by the Appelant-Collector rsquo s plea that the delay of 6 months and 23 days was caused on account of an ascertainment of the current prices of the goods. Such a long time in ascertaining the current prices merely speaks of negligence of the appellant and dealing with the file in a casual manner. Accordingly, relying on a number of decisions, particularly, on Supreme Court rsquo s decision in the case of Tata Yodogawa Limited mentioned supra, we hold that there is no sufficient cause for late filing of the appeal. Hence the COD application is rejected. Consequentially, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.
-
1991 (3) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the gate passes were not endorsed or even the R.T. 12s were not endorsed the appellants cause could not be held to suffer because of this, as there was no prescribed requirement for endorsing the R.T. 12 or gate passes to the effect that duty was paid under protest. The Ld. Appellate Collector in his order has merely held that the letter of protest is irrelevant. He has not gone into the grounds on which the lower authority rejected the appellant rsquo s claim. In fact in the context of filing the letter of protest the Department has not filed any application for review on this aspect and to that extent once the lower authorities have accepted the letter of protest, the Collector could not have held it otherwise against the appellants on the question of the status of the letter of protest. In view of the above while concurring with Ld. Brother, I hold that the lower authority rsquo s order is bad in law and the appellant rsquo s appeal has to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 253 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... requirements under the Rules. In view of above, we hold that inasmuch as the Assistant Collector has taken the payments made by the appellants as ldquo under protest rdquo his order had acquired finality and another authority namely another Assistant Collector before whom the refund claim was filed cannot hold otherwise on the same issue. In view of the above we hold that the appellants rsquo case has to be considered on the ground that duty was paid under protest. In view of above, we set aside the order of the lower appellate authority sine the claims are not hit by limitation. However, we remand the case to the original authority for working out the refund after verifying the endorsement in the records to the effect that duty in respect of which refund is claimed had been paid under protest. In view of what we have held above, we have not examined the scope of the terms of the Hon rsquo ble High Court rsquo s order. The appeal is thus allowed by remand in the above terms.
-
1991 (3) TMI 252 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Smuggling of diamonds ... ... ... ... ..... crutiny the Revisional Authority found that even though the Diamonds stated in the Jewellery as covered by Items 1 to 8 of the seizure list appears to be of foreign origin and about the Diamonds there is no definite indication that these were of foreign origin, the department has not produced any evidence to show that the goods were smuggled. rdquo It is, thus, clear from the above-said order of the Hon rsquo ble High Court that there is no basis for the authorities to come to the conclusion that these diamonds are in any way different from the diamonds which were found in the jewellery which were covered by Items 1 to 8 of the Schedule to the show cause notice. In such circumstances, there is a manifest error on the part of the authorities below to apply two different standards of proof and the reasons assigned by them cannot be sustained. In the result, these two appeals are allowed and it is hereby directed that the seized diamonds be returned to the respective appellants.
............
|