|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 207
... ...
... ... ..... e the adjudicating authority had no occasion to consider this aspect and in view of the observations made by the Collector in the impugned Order that importer had imported identical goods at the similar price and Department has already taken up investigation in the earlier imports, we feel the outcome of the investigation in these cases also has got a bearing in determining the value in this case. We feel this issue has to be examined afresh. Accordingly, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Collector on this limited issue to redetermine the value in the light of above observations after giving an opportunity to the appellants. As regards fine and penalty, we do not propose to make any observation at this stage since we are remanding the matter on point of valuation. However, the adjudicating authority is at liberty to reconsider this issue also and to redetermine the same on determination of the value of the goods. Thus, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (10) TMI 206
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... e considered to be of universal application in the sense that any and every person who manufactures similar products anywhere in the country would be entitled to a refund of duty which may have been paid in excess without an application for refund on the strength of this order of the Board. We do not consider that the amplitude of Section 11B(3) is that large. 14. As can be seen from Para 7, mere reclassification done will not automatically entitle the assessee for refund without an application for refund. It means that separate refund application has to be filed as per Section 11B of the Act. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) rsquo s finding that the order of the Assistant Collector for change of the classification of the product of the appellants is a ground for refund and to reject their claim on time-bar, is not a sustainable finding in view of the case law noted above. In the result, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is allowed and the Cross appeal of the assessee is rejected.
-
1992 (10) TMI 205
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... rity and the petitioner would not be entitled to grant of waiver of pre-deposit of duty on prima facie ground. Though no financial hardship has been pleaded before us with reference to any documentary evidence such as Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss accounts of the Company, keeping in mind the fact that contentious issues are raised with reference to the scope and interpretation of the Notification in question and the Department also permitted clearance of the goods earlier without the other electronic items and also subsequently on execution of personal bond, we direct the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) on or before 29th January, 1993 and report compliance subject to which pre-deposit of the balance amount would stand dispensed with pending appeal. We also grant stay of the recovery of the balance amount subject to the petitioners complying with this order. The matter will be called on 29th January, 1993 for reporting compliance.
-
1992 (10) TMI 204
Appeal wrongly filed to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... o return the papers and not to direct the transfer. Had the papers been returned to the appellant before the Tribunal to present the case before the proper forum, it would have been possible for the petitioner to raise the plea of limitation, which undoubtedly is a valid plea. That valuable opportunity is deprived of, besides lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal to transfer the appeals. For these reasons, it is prayed, that part of the order has to be quashed. rdquo We respectfully follow the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court and direct the Registry to return the papers to the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to file a revision application before the Central Govt. if he so chooses in accordance with law. The appeal was presented before the Tribunal before the expiry of limitation and was in time. We shall appreciate if the revisionary authority considers the limitation aspect sympathetically and liberally. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (10) TMI 203
Appeal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... /Frame No of the vehicle indicated in the communication from the Honda Motor Co. Ltd. tallies with the chassis number of the vehicle indicated in the bill of entry filed by the appellant. In these circumstances we are of the view that the export price of C 10397 FOB as certified by the manufacturer can be adopted as the basis for computing the assessable value of the car imported by the appellant. For these reasons and having regard to the fact that the invoice relied upon by the department for computing the assessable value was in respect of a Honda Accord EX Car which is superior to the imported Honda Accord LX vehicle we set aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) and direct that the assessable value of the vehicle in question should be worked out by the Asstt. Collector on the basis of the price certified by the Honda Motor Co. in their communication addressed to the Indian Embassy in Japan and consequential refund if any should also be granted to the appellant.
-
1992 (10) TMI 202
Gang saw blades having been imported ... ... ... ... ..... r attention to a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Madras 1987 (32) E.L.T. 112A (Tribunal) . The Tribunal was also examining Notification 35/79-Cus. which is the predecessor notification of Notification 179/80-Cus. under consideration in this case and pari materia with the latter notification as stated above. The same reasoning has been given by the Tribunal for extension of the benefit of Notification 35/79 which has been given later by the Apex Court in BHEL rsquo s case, supra. Since there is no dispute that machine saws which are manufactured by the importers fall under Tariff Heading 84.45/48 and the saw blades are parts of the machine saws and are required for the manufacture of machine saws, benefit of Notification 179/90 has been rightly extended by the lower appellate authority to the importers (respondents herein). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected. Cross-objections are dismissed as not pressed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 201
Limitation - Joint Reference Application ... ... ... ... ..... l to the High Court. When an answer to the question is simple, obvious and self-evident, it cannot be termed as a question of law and the Tribunal is not bound to refer such a question. The conclusion reached by us finds ample support in CIT v. Chander Bhan Harbhajan Lal 1966 60 ITR 188 (SC), Mathura Prasad v. CIT 1966 60 ITR 428 (SC), CIT v. Indian Mica Supply Co. P. Ltd. 1970 77 ITR 20 (SC) and CIT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia 1980 122 ITR 38 (SC). When a decision on a point of law apparently does not show any problem or debate on the point, it cannot be a question of law. Even if a point of law does arise out of the decision of the Tribunal but the answer to the point is self-evident and obvious or when the question is of an academic nature or where it has been concluded by a judgment of the Supreme Court or the High Court under which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction, the Tribunal would be justified not to refer such a point of law. 13. The Application is rejected.
-
1992 (10) TMI 200
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... e reason to feel aggrieved and the Cross-Objection is justified. We allow their Cross-Objection. Thus, so far as, this appeal and this respondent is concerned, both the appeal and the Cross-Objection succeed partly. We order accordingly. The matter is remanded to Collector (A) for decision on merits. 10. As regards the third appeal, where the respondent is M/s. Lakshmi Narayan Motor Engineering Works, there is no response from them, not to speak of Cross-Objection. However, in line with our decision in the other two cases, we allow the appeal by way of remand to the Collector (Appeals) for de now decision on merits in accordance with law, after providing them the opportunity of personal hearing. 11. This order is passed in respect of the above-mentioned three appeals and related cross-objections. The impugned order is set aside with reference to the concerned respondents only. The order qua the other parties will come up for examination when the relative appeals are taken up.
-
1992 (10) TMI 199
Refund - Exemption to hospital equipment on production of essentiality certificate from Ministry of Health/D.G.H.S.
-
1992 (10) TMI 198
Exempted waste and scrap not treatable as non-duty paid or charged to ‘nil’ rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... /patlies will not be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 178/88. Similarly, even if gullies/patlies are totally exempt from duty, it cannot be held that sheets of copper are not eligible for exemption. 13. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that gullies/patlies and sheets and circles of copper/brass are eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification Nos. 174/84 dated 1-8-1984, 149/86, dated 1-3-1986, 98/88, dated 1-3-1988 and 178/88, dated 13th May 1988 as amended by 68/89, dated 1-3-1989. 14. In the result, we hold as under - (1) Gullies/patlies of copper/brass are to be classified under Heading 7403.21 of CETA, 1985 for the period 1-3-1988 onwards. (2) Gullies/patlies and sheets/circles of copper/brass are eligible to the benefit of exemption under the Notification mentioned in para 13 above. (3) The demands are barred by limitation. (4) The penalties imposed in all four appeals are set aside. 15. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (10) TMI 197
... ...
... ... ..... ed US dollar 2 per piece. Admittedly, the quantity imported by the appellant is 2 1/2 times more than the quantity imported under the invoice dated 10-4-1984. Therefore, the price mentioned in the invoice dated 10-4-1984 cannot be treated as comparable price for the purpose of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act. Further, the Collector also referred to another invoice dated 5-5-1984. However, we find under this invoice only 4563 pcs. were imported at Singapore dollar 4.15. Since the quantity is 2 1/2 times less than the quantity imported by the appellant, this invoice price cannot also be treated as comparable price. From the above, it follows that since there is no evidence of contemporary imports at higher price at the relevant time, there is no other alternative except to accept the invoice price. We direct the Department to accept the invoice price and assess the goods under Section 14(1). We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the Order of the Additional Collector.
-
1992 (10) TMI 196
Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... Shri Biswas, no demand could have been raised for this period. While, therefore, confirming the order of the learned Collector, we direct that the amount of duty shall be recalculated (in the light of the evidence placed before us by Shri Biswas) and communicated to the appellants. In case the appellants have any clarification to seek on the amount of duty which has to be recalculated, the authorities will grant them an opportunity of a hearing at which the position can be properly explained. In fact, the basis of the calculation of duty should first be communicated to the appellants, and thereafter, subject to anything they may have to say, the amount of duty should be finally confirmed. 15. In view of our conclusions, we do not think that this is a fit case for either reduction in penalty or completely dispensing with it. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal subject to the recalculation of the amount of duty as indicated in the preceding paragraph.
-
1992 (10) TMI 195
Principles of natural justice violated ... ... ... ... ..... been duly observed. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction that he should serve a copy of the show cause notice on the appellants and allow them an opportunity to file reply and thereafter grant them personal hearing and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 9. We may mention that the appellants may be allowed to inspect the records and take copies of the documents relied upon by the Department including the show cause notice, if they so request. 10. Before parting we may observe that it is a matter of great concern that in spite of the efforts of the learned Departmental Representative, the Collector concerned has not cared to respond to the request of his own Representative and higher authorities concerned may like to take note of this fact and ensure that this is not repeated in future. 11. The order was pronounced in the open court on the conclusion of the hearing on 9-10-1992.
-
1992 (10) TMI 194
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... completion of a manufactured product. The cost of the Printing Ink is included in the prices charged by the appellants to their customers and the said cost is the cum-duty cost thereof. Printing Ink is undoubtedly an input in the manufacture of the Printed Plastic Films and is even present thereon as the printed text. The process of printing cannot be taken to be a post-manufacturing sequel. Till the printed products emerge, at their hands, the process of manufacture is not complete. The objections taken by the authorities are unrealistic and opposed to the provisions of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We had held in Indian Explosives Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 117-T that Printing Ink used for marking explosives was eligible for proforma credit under Rule 56A. In line with the same decision, we allow the present appeals and set aside the orders appealed against.
-
1992 (10) TMI 193
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... refore, hold that this is one such case where the authorities should approach the matter in the above light. We observe that in the present case the appellants had informed the authorities and obtained their permission for sending the ingots to the job worker and instead of clearing the goods free of duty as envisaged in Notification 214/86 the job worker chose to pay duty. The clearance of goods on payment of duty by job worker is not a bar for grant of concession under Rule 57F(2). Since all the facts regarding the manufacture and clearance of goods have not been disputed, we are constrained to remand the matter for de novo consideration to the original authority to decide the matter in the light of the above observations. We clarify that we have proceeded on the assumption that the job worker has not taken the MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs and the appellants have not taken the MODVAT credit in respect of the intermediate goods received by them from the job worker.
-
1992 (10) TMI 192
Newspaper establishment ... ... ... ... ..... her documents has been fulfilled (e) if the transaction is not genuine (f) Whether the authorities have received any complaints that paper supplied to particular buyers has not been used in the printing of newspapers or text books or other books of general nature even though it was granted exemption from duty under the notification on the ground that it was intended for use for the specified purposes . 32. As can be seen from above, the question of ownership of newspaper, etc., was not rightly gone into as the notification does not deal with such a requirement. As has been observed, the transaction has to be genuine. That being so, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied in this case. Therefore, I order for allowing the appeal and reject the cross objection of the department, as it is not in the nature of cross appeal but mere comments on the appeal filed by the appellants. (S.L. PEERAN) Member (Judicial) 33. In the light of the majority view, the appeal is rejected.
-
1992 (10) TMI 191
Strictures against Departmental authorities ... ... ... ... ..... ill be matters which will have to be decided. There will be two relevant dates for the start of the limitation period, namely, the date of receipt of the order of the adjudicating authority deciding the matter on principle and the date of receipt of the communication specifying the amount of duty. If the appellant is not aggrieved with the adjudication order but with the quantification of the demand, he may take up cudgels against the same. This appeal against the first order filed at that stage may be beyond the normal period of limitation and would require to be supplemented with a condonation of delay application. On the other hand, an appeal against the communication of the duty amount involved may not be permitted to cross the threshold on grounds of jurisdiction leaving the hapless appellant high and dry. A complete adjudication order, mentioning the duty amount involved, is what will fill the bill. 6. The order was announced in the open Court at the end of the hearing.
-
1992 (10) TMI 190
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... cuments relating to runners and risers and that they had not produced them before Collector (Appeals) due to inadvertence. But it is seen that the appellants could have, but did not/respond positively to the letter dated 12-2-1992 from Collector (Appeals) calling for certain documents and the Collector (Appeals) too had dismissed the appeals as infructuous in a situation where the appeals could more properly be held as unsubstantiated. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of the submissions made before us, we are inclined to hold that the appellants rsquo plea for a fresh opportunity to produce the requisite documentary evidence before Collector (Appeals) is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case, and accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the appeals to the Collector (Appeals) to pass fresh orders after considering the documentary evidence, which the appellants seek to produce in accordance with law and after hearing them in the matter.
-
1992 (10) TMI 189
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... fit of MODVAT credit coming within the mischief of Rule 57A. The learned Counsel also urged specifically on Rule 57A(b) which includes packing material for eligibility to MODVAT credit. 3. Shri Gregory, the learned SDR, adopted the reasoning by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions made before us. Even if a very broad, and charitable view is taken with reference to the scope of Rule 57A, it would be difficult to hold that paper bags used as packing material is an input in the manufacture or in relation to the manufacture of cement. To a specific query the learned counsel in all fairness submitted that cement is also sold in bulk. Therefore, in the context of the Scheme of MODVAT and having regard to the process of manufacture of cement and its distribution, it is not a pre-requisite for putting the cement in the market stream. In this view of the matter, we uphold the order of the lower appellate authority and dismiss the appeal.
-
1992 (10) TMI 188
Manufacture - Goods ... ... ... ... ..... cranes cleared in knocked down condition and the Court held that the complete crane fabricated and assembled at one Unit of the assessee and transported to the assessee rsquo s plant in knocked down condition was excisable under TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Tariff. In this case, however, there cannot be any dispute that the item in question Evaporator J Plant was built on cement concrete foundation and permanently laid and embedded in the ground. Therefore, it is immovable property as it is attached to the ground. 10. In the light of the above discussion we hold as follows (a) the assembly, erection and commissioning of the Evaporator J Plant by the appellants does not amount to manufacture of excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff (b) the demand of duty is barred by limitation (c) penalty is set aside. 11. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. The cross-objection accordingly abates.
........
|
