|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 292 Records
-
1992 (1) TMI 252 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Export obligation ... ... ... ... ..... ven within the extended period. Hence, suitable safeguards are to be prescribed. 5. emsp After hearing both the sides, we find that there is no dispute regarding the availability of the material. The only allegation is that this material is not utilised and exported within the stipulated period. In view of the plea that there were some difficulties in effecting the exports, in the interest of justice as well as of export promotion, we would deem it proper to grant the request and extend the time for utilisation of the balance of material and effect export positively before end of June, 1992, failing which the Department would be entitled to initiate the adjudication proceedings in respect of such stock lying unutilised. With this observation, we set aside the order of the Additional Collector and allow the appeal in the above terms. 6. emsp Since the appeal itself is disposed of, the stay application does not survive for consideration. The same is also treated as disposed of.
-
1992 (1) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation of second-hand machinery ... ... ... ... ..... the confiscation we are of the view that the appellants had been acting bona fidely both in the matter of declaration of value and in the declaration of the year of manufacture in respect of offset printing machine as apparent from their negotiations with the suppliers mentioned earlier. Therefore, there would not be any justification in confiscating the goods. For the same reason there is no justification for imposing any penalty on them. Hence the fines in view of confiscation on the two machines and the penalties imposed on both the appellants are set aside. 5.3 In view of our aforesaid findings, it is merely of academic interest to deal with the question of individual penalty on the proprietor of the concern. The reliance placed by the learned advocate in the case of V.K. Thampi is very apposite inasmuch as a penalty had been imposed on the first appellant. There was no necessity to impose penalty on the proprietor of the concern. 6. Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (1) TMI 250 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund of duty paid on goods ... ... ... ... ..... are very clear, namely when the goods have suffered duty, provisions of Chapter X would not stand attracted. The approach of the Collector (Appeals) therefore appears to be not justified and the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) cannot be sustained. 6. It may however be observed that the Collector (Appeals) has concentrated only on one issue and has not examined the appellants case for grant of refund from any other permissible angle, nor has he scrutinised the order of the Asstt. Collector from any other angle. Therefore, instead of ordering restoration of the order of the Asstt. Collector, it appears just an equitable to direct the Collector (Appeals) to reconsider the issue from other permissible angles and decide the same according to law. In that case, while setting aside the order of the Collector (Appeals), I remand the matter back to the Collector for proper adjudication according to law in the light of observations made. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1992 (1) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Countervailing Duty ... ... ... ... ..... r, 1989 passed by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rajyog Ispat Mills v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. In reply, Shri Manoj Arora, learned counsel for the respondents, conceded the legal position and agreed that the countervailing duty (Additional Duty of Customs) was leviable. 4. We have considered the submissions. The reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) that since the subject goods are scrap of used and unserviceable items, these cannot be held as falling under 26AA CET as to attract Central Excise Duty, and therefore, no countervailing duty can be levied on the imported goods is not tenable in law, in view of the said decisions cited at the Bar and conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and restore the Order of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), for the reasons mentioned by us, as aforesaid. Cross-objections filed by the respondents also stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (1) TMI 248 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Import - Letter of credit ... ... ... ... ..... n a bona fide belief in this behalf and when there was a past practice of allowing such goods in question, the confiscation of the goods is not in accordance with law on the ground that no Trade Notice was issued in this behalf intimating the importers that in view of the clarification from the C.C.I. and E. the goods are not permissible to be imported. In that view of the matter, when the import was bona fide, the confiscation is not in accordance with law. These were the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Akbar Baddruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) 1990 (28) ECR 145. In that case also, the appellants bonafidely believed that the import is permissible and in those circumstances, it was held that the confiscation was not in order and the penalty imposed was also set aside. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The confiscation order is set aside. The appellants are entitled for the consequential benefit.
-
1992 (1) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tyres - Uncut tyres - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... ders of the lower authorities have correctly been made arid the appeal therefore fails on miscount. We also agree with the Collector (Appeals) that Section 24 Customs Act has no application to the present case. 6. As for the second plea about the interpretation of the expression ldquo like articles rdquo in Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, the position becomes clear from the Explanation added to it. Where like articles are not produced or manufactured in India, the duty leviable on the class or description of the article to which the imported article belongs is the duty that would be leviable on it on its import into India. Thus, this argument too is devoid of any merit and the scrap or old tyres cannot escape the levy of additional duty just because there is no entry in the Central Excise Tariff for ldquo used pneumatic tyres rdquo corresponding to the entry in the customs tariff. The appeal therefore fails on this count too. The result is that the appeal is rejected.
-
1992 (1) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, Bench in discretion proceeded to hear the appeal ex parte and heard Shri L.N. Murthy, learned JDR for the appellant. Shri Murthy reiterated the grounds taken up by the Collector (Appeals) in the Memo of Appeals. 3. We have considered submissions. It is not in dispute that the label was attached to the classification list No. 207/81 giving the complete details and the same was approved by the proper officer after verification. If the proper officer was of the view that the said label required further examination by Deputy Chief Chemist, he should have done so at that stage. In these circumstances, subsequent examination by the Deputy Chief Chemist after the approval of the classification list cannot be a ground for invoking the extended period of 5 years under Section 11-A of the Act. Accordingly, we agree with the learned Collector (Appeals) that demand was time-barred. 4. In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1992 (1) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Power - Use of power - Exemption to goods manufactured without the aid of power ... ... ... ... ..... n the other hand pointed out that the Collector has relied upon the statement of the appellants dated 29-10-1983 in which they had admitted power was used regularly. 2. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, it is observed that in this case admittedly power has been used in drilling holes in the Air-Guides which is integral part of the manufacture of the goods and the appellants statement dated 29-10-1983 would indicate that only this process of drilling was being done with the aid of power. The fact that it is a minor operation will not be material so long as power is in fact used in any process that is integral to the manufacture of the final product. In this view of the matter the demand for duty in the impugned order is maintainable and is upheld. However, having regard to the amount of duty involved in these cases, we are inclined to afford relief in the matter of personal penalty which is accordingly reduced to Rs. 1,000/-. The order was announced in Court.
-
1992 (1) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... intricate, specialised and technical in nature. Therefore, the facts of the present case are covered by the order of this Tribunal in Aruna Industries. 12. The fact that in the appellant rsquo s own case this Tribunal in order No. 254-259/88, dated 13-5-1988 1988 (36) E.L.T. 613 (Tri.) following the order in Aruna Industries held that cutting, welding, punching and galvanising of duty paid angles etc. does not amount to manufacture, is not disputed. Therefore, following the order of this Tribunal in the respondent rsquo s own case, we do not consider it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 13. Appeals are thus dismissed in view of the Tribunal order mentioned above. Sd/- (S.V. Maruthi) Member (J) Dated 6-1-1992. Sd/- (P.C. Jain) Member (T) Sd/- (P.K. Kapoor) Member (T) Having regard to the reasoning in para 12 of my learned Sister rsquo s order I do not find any merit in the appeals and dismiss them accordingly. Dated 14-1-1992 Sd/- (P.C. Jain) Technical Member
-
1992 (1) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... -1987 on our record. Thus, following the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of J.K. Advani and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, supra, we hold that the said letter dated 30-1-1987 received in the Office of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds), New Delhi, on 24-2-1987 was itself a claim for refund which was within the stipulated period of six months, as required under Section 27 of the Customs Act, from the date of the payment of duty. Thus, we hold that the claim was not hit by limitation under Section 27. In this view of the matter we are not called upon to decide as to whether the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act would also apply to a claim made for remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act or not. 5. In the result, we set aside the impugned Orders and remand the case, to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds), New Delhi, for processing the instant refund claim on merits. 6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (1) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ssed and finalised by an officer below the rank of Collector because in terms of Section 128 CA 62 ldquo any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Collector of Customs, may appeal to the Collector rdquo and in the instant case it has been stated before us that the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay permitted their removal for re-warehousing and the ex-bond bill of entry was filed before the Superintendent of Customs and Excise and it is the classification which was under challenge. A question of refund (or demand for that matter) could arise only after the classification has been finally determined And an order regarding the classification was challengeable in appeal in view of Section 128 cited above. In view of the above position we set aside the order of Collector (Appeals) and remand these matters back to him with the direction that he should decide the cases on merits and pass appropriate orders.
-
1992 (1) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... they are sold as broken glazed tiles. Even if they fetch small value, broken glazed tiles belong to a category distinctly apart from the category of glazed tiles which have a distinct identity. In the absence of any specific heading for broken glazed tiles as waste material, and opposed to the metals like copper scrap etc., it would not be appropriate to equate them with glazed tiles or to take them to the residuary entry of item 68. The distinction between broken glazed tiles and broken glass is that while latter can be melted and re-cycled, former cannot be treated in the same manner. If they cannot be sold as waste material for a nominal price, they would have to be discarded or thrown away as waste material rdquo . The above ruling of the Tribunal is fully applicable to the facts of this case from the angle by which the lower authorities have decided the case. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by applying the ratio of the above cited case with consequential relief, if any.
-
1992 (1) TMI 240 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Agent’s Liability - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... is order, as extracted above, has observed ldquo as the owners of the vessel are at Singapore it is not possible to take any action directly against them and has further observed ldquo however for all practical purposes M/s. Rajathi Agencies the authorised steamer agents of the vessel are liable to all acts of omission and commission by the owners of the vessel rdquo . The learned lower authority has not set out as to from which provision of law his latter observation flow. Section 147(3), as observed above, cannot be invoked. The only provision under which action could have been taken is for recovery of the penalties from the steamer agents, if the same had been levied against the owners. Once the learned lower authority has held that no action in law can be taken against the owners, the question of recovery of any penalty leviable against them from the steamer agents, therefore, would not arise. In view of the above I hold that the appellants rsquo appeal has to be allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Aluminium wires drawn from duty paid aluminium rods and used in manufacture of conductors ... ... ... ... ..... les and they were a distinct product from AAC and ACSR conductors, since the proforma credit procedure under Rule 56A applied to Item 33B and admittedly both aluminium wires and conductors fell under the same tariff sub-item 33B(ii) lsquo All others rsquo it was not permissible for the department to collect and retain the full duty twice under the same sub-item. On the ratio of these decisions it has to be held that duty having been recovered at the final stage on aluminium conductors manufactured by the respondents, no duty was recoverable on aluminium wires manufactured and removed for captive consumption for the manufacture of conductors rdquo . 3. In view of the facts and circumstances are similar to that of the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. M/s. Andhra Industrial Works, we follow our earlier decisions. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The Revenue authorities are directed to give the consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (1) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d have considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We agree with the learned advocate that such goods are normally imported by sea and therefore, the sea freight is to be taken into account. It is the onus of the department to prove that the goods are exclusively imported by air only. In the case of such eventuality alone it may be possible for the department to include the air freight in arriving at the CIF value. The department has not been able to show in this case that the goods are not imported by sea in this case whereas the appellants have shown on the basis of (i) confirmation of the order and (ii) invoice that the goods were to be normally imported by sea and for that reason sea freight was included in the CIF value of the goods. We are, therefore, satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ORWO Films, mentioned supra will apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (1) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... that the discount need not be reflected in the invoices or be given at the time of delivery of goods. 10. In view of the above judgments, we allow the claim of the appellants for deduction of trade discount given by means of credit notes. No other decision is brought to our notice. 11. As regards the freight claimed by the appellants, it appears from the order of the Collector the Assistant Collector approved the price list under Part-1 by including the cost of transportation. In other words. Part I price includes the cost of transportation. According to the judgment in Bombay Tyres International, the assessable value is to be determined by excluding the equalised freight. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the deduction of equalised freight. Thus, order of the Collector disallowing the deduction of transportation is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyres International. 12. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (1) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Undervaluation ... ... ... ... ..... how cause notice and were also put on notice regarding confiscation of the goods for violation of ITC Regulations as the party produced REP licence of June, 1989 at the time of personal hearing and we, therefore, see no force in the submission of the learned Consultant that the importers were not put on notice regarding alleged contravention of ITC Regulations. The Department is correct in contending that the REP licence produced cannot cover the goods imported as import of old and used goods brought as disposal items are not permitted under ITC Regulations. Accordingly we uphold the charge of ITC violation and the consequent confiscation of the goods. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case and with particular regard to our finding that the invoice price of the goods has to be accepted, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 25,000 /- to Rs. 8,000/-, and the personal penalty is reduced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,000/-. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (1) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand order by Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... matter back to him for re-consideration of the matter regarding two items which remain in dispute with the direction that he should give specific reasons for his conclusions at the time of passing the final order, after giving the Respondents herein an opportunity of being heard, if they so desire. rdquo Thereafter we heard the learned Counsels on the question of classification of wheels and axles and the following order was recorded and pronounced in the open Court - ldquo Matter remanded to the Assistant Collector who will adjudicate de novo taking into account the additional grounds filed by the appellant herein on the question of classification of wheels and axles. He may also take into account the department rsquo s miscellaneous application dated 21-3-1990 (Received in Registry on 22-3-1990). This has become necessary because the additional evidence brought on record by both sides now was not before the original authority. rdquo 4. Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (1) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ctor order-in-appeal No. 43/81 does not contain the necessary proposals to revise the assessable value at Rs. 13.64. 10. We therefore, held that the department has set the machinery in motion by issuing a show cause notice dated 18-8-1980 and a subsequent revised show cause notice in pursuance of the order of the Collector in order-in-appeal No. 43/81 while restricting the claim of refunds which in effect amounts to revision of the assessable value. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion we reject the contention of the appellant. 12. It is now well settled that it is the effective rate of duty alone is to be deducted from the price and where the appellant collects the duty at the tariff rate from the customers, the department is justified in revising the assessable value, while granting the refund treating the difference in tariff rate and effective rate of duty as profit and adding the same to the assessable value. We, therefore, reject the appeal as it is devoid of merits.
-
1992 (1) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off register - Maintenance when not necessary ... ... ... ... ..... dquo calculated fraud rdquo with connivance of the officials of the Department does not behold to the status of the learned Collector. It is now well settled that the adjudicating officers or Appellate Court should use temperate language and as held in the case of Iswari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa as reported in AIR 1963 S.C. 1728 and it has also been held that use of unduly strong words in expressing conclusions or adopting of intemperate or extravagant criticism against contrary view should be avoided. The charge of suppression does not stand to reason in view of physical control, supervision by officials and daily checking of records and hence the demands are also time barred. The ratio of the ruling rendered by Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Product and Chemphar Drugs and Liniments cited by the learned advocate is applicable to the facts of this case. 41. In view of our findings given above, the appellants succeed and the impugned Order is set aside.
........
|
