|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 310 Records
-
1992 (2) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... are not binding but are of persuasive value, being reflective of international wisdom and experience in tariff matters, which this was also earlier stated in the case of Madhu Chemicals (supra) International Trade and Commerce. But these rulings are clearly distinguishable, as we are not applying HSN Explanatory Notes for interpreting the wordings in the notification, but are only reiterating the well laid proposition, that for interpreting the wordings of a notification, the tariff entry understandings and rules governing its application do also apply. Therefore, the ruling of Collector of Customs v. OEN India Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the present case, as the said judgment of the Tribunal has not considered the ruling of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Khandelwal (supra). However, this ruling of OEN India Ltd. does not have any binding effect at all. 11. In the result, the appellants succeed in this appeal, with consequential relief, if any.
-
1992 (2) TMI 250 - SUPREME COURT
DRAW-BACK, SET-OFF OR REFUND — MANUFACTURING DEALER — GOODS USED IN MANUFACTURE OF TAXABLE GOODS FOR SALE - NO SCOPE FOR BIFURCATION
-
1992 (2) TMI 249 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... al, the papers are directed to be transmitted to the Registry, CEGAT, New Delhi. Sd/- (S. Kalyanam) Member (J) 6. emsp Order per V.P. Gulati, Member (T) . - I agree with my learned Brother. I would like to add that the petitioners have been denied the benefit only on the sole ground of unjust enrichment. I find that the authorities have not invoked the provisions of the amended Act under which refund is not to be allowed, in case of unjust enrichment. The lower authorities merely referred to the High Court judgments under which some of the High Courts have refused to accede to the prayer in the Writ petitions for refund where the duty had already been collected and which was not leviable, under law. Those proceedings were under Writ jurisdiction and the law laid down in the Writ proceedings cannot be prima facie applied, if specific provisions relating to refund have been invoked. In view of above, prima facie, on this ground alone, the petitioners have a good case on merits.
-
1992 (2) TMI 248 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... e purview of Rule 57D(2) are those products which only come into existence during the manufacture of the final product and not those which are actually produced by a deliberate process of manufacture and that coming into existence of a product and production thereof are two different things and the scope of Rule 57D(2) extends only to intermediate products coming into existence not intentionally and not to goods produced deliberately. We find this argument is totally invalid. The rule does not limit its scope to only unintended or accidental arisings of by-products, waste, residue etc. during the manufacturing process. Even by-products are inevitable results of a planned manufacturing process. The words ldquo intermediate products have come into existence during the course of manufacture of the final product rdquo do not permit the interpretation projected by the Departmental Representative. The Appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, as already announced in the Court.
-
1992 (2) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Testing of samples ... ... ... ... ..... al for their defence, they become relevant evidence for the case and if the department keeps them back, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. From the proceedings we find that such violation of principles of natural justice has taken place in respect of the fabrics seized at the premises of M/s. Raj Kumar and Co. of Ahmedabad. Although the quantity so seized is insignificant as compared to the overall quantity involved in the Surat seizures and stock shortages, that, in our view, cannot be a ground for glossing over the matter. rdquo 5. emsp On the ratio of the decision cited above, we hold that the failure on the part of the Department to furnish to the appellant a copy of the test report dated 11-9-1984 of the Deputy Chief Chemist, shortly after it was received, was violative of the principles of natural justice. 6. emsp In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (2) TMI 246 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Return of duty-paid goods without complying with the requirements of the rules ... ... ... ... ..... ot only Rule 52A but also the other provisions of Rule 173Q would be applicable. In the facts and the circumstances, where the plea of the appellants that the crane had to be brought back for balancing the consignment has been accepted, in my view, both the provisions of Rule 173Q or Rule 52A may not be applicable. Hence, confiscation and penal liability may not stand, merely because, they have not chosen to wait for the next day and give the intimation before the removal. It is not the case of the Department that the goods removed are non-duty paid. The object of Rule 51A and Rule 173H is to prevent removal of non-duty paid goods in the guise of retained/returned duty paid goods. Hence, when it is established that the goods are duty paid ones and they had to be retained on account of circumstances, beyond their control and non-compliance of the provisions of Rules is not wanton, penal proceedings do not stand justified. I therefore allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1992 (2) TMI 245 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... tity becomes difficult to be established. Even for taking a liberal view, the picture emerging from the documents does not clinch the claim made by the appellants that the goods received under delivery challan only relate to these two gate passes and may not relate to some other receipts. We may not be able to agree to an arithmetical tally merely based on the total number of boxes covered by the two gate passes. Burden is heavily cast on the appellants to establish the duty paid nature of the inputs, which have been received without the cover of authorised duty paid documents. It is not a case of deemed credit being taken on the market purchase. When the documents, even on a post-mortem consideration, could not clearly establish co-relation with gate passes, which are endorsed, their claim cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the result appeal is rejected.
-
1992 (2) TMI 244 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat - Goods manufactured, cleared on payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... y with reference to metal products, where, on account of damage, the goods may have to be scrapped and melted and then manufactured into new product. The test therefore to be applied is whether there is any manufacture involved in utilisation of the material brought in under the MODVAT Scheme and whether it brings into existence a new product. Applying this test, we are left with no alternative but to allow the appeal of the revenue and dismiss the appeals of the assessee. If the appellants have a case on the ground of equity regarding double taxation, they are advised to resort to such other course of action available in the Rules for averting the double payment. 10. emsp Before parting, we observe that in the case of Appeal E/467/90-Bom., a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed, which has been sustained by the Collector (Appeals). We find that in a case like this, no penalty is called for and in that view, we set aside the penalty. 11. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (2) TMI 243 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... rcumstances. In this case, however, the contradictions are so very material and apparent that it is impossible for the Tribunal to take up any grain of truth from these contradictory statements. In such circumstances, not being endowed with the power of the legendary swan to suck out milk from a pot of water and milk mixed, the Tribunal has to reject the whole evidence as unreliable on the simple ground that the falsehood and contradictions are innumerable that it is highly impossible to segregate any grain of truth from the above-said statements of the co-accused which we have already discussed above. Added to this factor these statements are not at all corroborated by any independent circumstance or any other independent evidence. In this view of the matter, we have no other alternative except extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside. The Appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs.
-
1992 (2) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Printing/Lacquering ... ... ... ... ..... observed by us earlier, the processes of lacquering or printing or both of plain aluminium containers was brought within the scope of the definition of the term lsquo manufacture rsquo in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the first time on 18-6-1980 by the Finance Bill of 1980. Hence, it has to be held that the printed or lacquered or both printed and lacquered aluminium containers manufactured up to 18-6-1980 by the appellants out of plain duty-paid aluminium containers were not excisable. 10. Since no duty was leviable on the stock of printed and lacquered aluminium containers held in stock by the appellants on 18-6-1980, we hold that in respect of such goods the Collector (Appeals) decision to extend the benefit of Notification No. 93/80 was erroneous. 11. In view of the above discussion the appeal is allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to the consequential relief after adjustment of the refund, if any, allowed in terms of the impugned order.
-
1992 (2) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Hypo-solution not to be treated as excisable goods ... ... ... ... ..... ambit of goods and thereafter to show that it will be excisable goods. The Department has not brought on record any evidence to rebut the claim of the respondents and also in their Cross Objection that hypo-solution is mainly for instant use and that it is ephemeral in nature. In the absence of such evidence being brought on record it is not possible for us to accept the Department rsquo s contention that merely based on the Chief Chemist opinion about the composition of the product it should be held to be excisable goods because of lack of evidence to show the marketability of the product which is an essential criteria laid down for excisability in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. (supra). In this view of the matter we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) holding that the goods hypo-solution is not excisable goods. The appeals are, therefore, rejected and Cross Objections are disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (2) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... here specified or included fall under sub-heading 8479.82. Since the goods imported are grinding set which is not a complete machine, their reassessment has been claimed as ldquo Parts of machinery and articles of Chapter 84 under sub-heading 98.06. The machine itself being classifiable under sub-heading 84.79.82, its parts are rightly classifiable under 9806.00 read with this sub-heading. The further claim in the appeal is for exemption under Notification 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. We observe that this notification exempts parts falling under Heading 98.06 of the goods specified, inter alia, under Heading 84.79 (refer to serial No. 19 of the Table appended to the notification). Thus, the subject goods which merit classification under sub-heading 9806.00 read with sub-heading 8479.82 are entitled to exemption under Notification 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal is allowed as indicated here, with consequential relief.
-
1992 (2) TMI 239 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ber, 1991 in a matter pertaining to O.N.G.C., the case was not heard but was adjourned. Subsequently, it has been decided by the larger Bench of the Tribunal that the pending appeals will not be affected by the Supreme Court decision. 3. The case is now posted for hearing on 8-4-1992. In view of this position, the department is directed not to take precipitate action for recovery of the disputed amounts of penalty and duty. This interim direction will be effective till the disposal of the stay matter, which is fixed for hearing as stated above.
-
1992 (2) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... entry governing the classification of goods, it is not necessary to refer to another tariff heading. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by Shri Khaitan are not relevant. 5. Admittedly, the clamps are made of stainless steel and articles of stainless steel are classifiable under Heading 73.33/40(2) whereas the Tariff Item 70.20 deals with glass fibre (including wool), yarn fabrics and articles made therefrom. The fact that the glass fibre filter bags falling under T.I. 70.20 become useless or non-functional without clamps and therefore, clamps being component part should be classified under T.I.70.20 as articles of Glass fibre is meaningless in view of the specific entry classifying articles of stainless steel. Therefore, we are of the view that the clamps have to be classified under Heading 73.33/40(2) as articles of stainless steel. For the reasons mentioned above, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. The appeals are accordingly rejected.
-
1992 (2) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption not claimable in excess of the amount of duty otherwise payable ... ... ... ... ..... way of recovering, which was stayed was also incorrect and should not have been done rsquo rdquo and, therefore, to this extent the impugned Order-in-Appeal is to be upheld. He also cited the case of Salem Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, 1985 (22) E.L.T. 831. 6. We have considered the submissions. On the strength of the said authorities cited at the Bar, we agree with the learned SDR that under Notification No. 108/78 no exemption could be claimed exceeding the amount of duty otherwise payable. In other words, the respondents could be entitled to rebate or exemption qua the amount of duty actually paid on clearance of the goods as held by the Assistant Collector. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Appeal to the extent that rebate shall be allowed at the rates prescribed in Notification No. 108/78 is set aside, as prayed for in para 6 of the grounds of appeal by the appellants. 6A. In the result, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (2) TMI 236 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... on 35C of the Act. We also would like to take note of the fact that the entire argument was heard in the open court and the order was also pronounced in the open court immediately and then and there to the hearing of the petitioner and in such a situation when no plea at all was argued or taken as is now contended before us, it would not be permissible for us to reopen the matter and consider the points now urged. Such an exercise would amount to reviewing our order which is not permissible under law. In this view of the matter we hold that there is no merit in the application and dismiss the same. 5. At this stage Shri Ramabadran vehemently pleaded that if the petitioners were to be called upon to reverse the credit immediately, he would suffer irreparable hardship and injury and prayed for two months rsquo time from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the petitioner to reverse 50 of the credit by 31st March, 1992 and the balance by 15th April, 1992.
-
1992 (2) TMI 235 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI Units ... ... ... ... ..... he Notification quoted above clearly states that the same should not be taken into account at all. Therefore, the Assistant Collector rsquo s contention, in the impugned order, that it is necessary to allow exemption under Notification 167/79 after the company crosses clearance limit of Rs. 20 lakhs is not at all correct. This according to the Assistant Collector is due to the harmonious reading of the notification and also considering the intention of the Government in Notifications but to interpret the words used therein. Therefore, the order of the Assistant Collector is not correct. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 6. Thus apart from the fact that if an assessee is entitled for the benefit of two separate Notifications, we agree with the said finding of the Collector (Appeals) that in terms of the Explanation II(a) to Notification No. 77/85 respondents were entitled for benefit as claimed. 7. In the result, the appeal is rejected being devoid of any merit.
-
1992 (2) TMI 234 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Cloves imported by the appellant fall within Item 169 in List 8 of Appendix 6 or fall within Paragraph 167 of Chapter XIII of the Import and Export Policy April 1990 - March 1993?
Held that:- In agreement with the view taken by the High Court that in the common parlance as well as in trade and commerce, clove is treated as spice and not drug. It is a matter of common knowledge that the cloves are sold in a ‘Kirana’ shop and not in the shop of a chemist or druggist. Thus, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court and this appeal having no force is dismissed
-
1992 (2) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sessable value of pipes. Admittedly, these lsquo O rsquo rings are bought out items and optional. The Collector found that the tariff entry reads as Asbestos product, all sorts rsquo and he also held that lsquo O rsquo rings are not integral part of the A.C. coupling. He also found that lsquo O rsquo rings are not essential and alternative cooling items can also be used by the actual users of couplings. In other words, the finding of the Collector is that the lsquo O rsquo rings are accessories and not essential parts of coupling and the fact that they are bought out items and optional is also not disputed. It is also an admitted fact that lsquo O rsquo rings are not fitted in the couplings at the time of clearance from the factory. In view of the various authorities referred to and relied upon by Shri Asthana, we are of the view that the value of lsquo O rsquo rings is not includible in the assessable value of pipes and asbestos couplings. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1992 (2) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... hyay Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta is not a proper authorisation - being of general nature. Following the ratio of Tribunal rsquo s judgments (i) 1989 (41) E.L.T. 652 (ii) 1989 (42) E.L.T. 6 The appeal is liable to be dismissed prima facie, as contended by the learned Advocate for the respondents. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case on the aforesaid preliminary point, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We order accordingly.
........
|
