|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 304 Records
-
1993 (3) TMI 233 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Tobacco powder - Unmanufactured tobacco ... ... ... ... ..... ed Tobacco. In their case, labelling, relabelling/repacking or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to manufacture. Since these specified processes will amount to manufacture if carried out on goods which are already manufactured Tobacco, the said Chapter Note is no authority to support the view that powdering of Tobacco would constitute a manufacturing process and Tobacco Powder is manufactured Tobacco. The position under the old Tariff was that Tobacco Powder was treated as unmanufactured Tobacco. The present Tariff provisions do not appear to take it out of that category. The applicants have also paid the full duty on their manufactured product Gul. In the circumstances, we feel grant of stay would be merited. We order accordingly. During the pendency of the appeals, the duty demanded shall stand stayed. 5. The issue for decision pertains to the Special Bench. Registry to transfer the appeals to CEGAT, New Delhi.
-
1993 (3) TMI 232 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Penalty - Duty demand ... ... ... ... ..... ere a manufacturer ldquo contravenes any of the provisions of the rules with an intent to evade payment of duty rdquo . 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that when the admitted position is that there is no duty evasion in this case and the duty demand has been dropped by the Collector, Rule 173Q would not be available for imposition of penalty. If there had been a contravention of Rule 173H, they could not have cleared the goods without payment of duty. But, here, we find a peculiar situation when the Collector holds that duty demand is not justifiable and there is no duty evasion. Since this finding cannot be disturbed by us suo moto on our own, without any appeal from the Revenue or a cross objection, going by the unchallenged findings of the Collector, he is not justified in invoking Rule 173Q to impose a penalty. Because that rule can be pressed into action, only when there is a violation of rules with an intend to evade duty. Hence we are to set aside the penalty.
-
1993 (3) TMI 231 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Customs House Agent Licence - Suspension thereof ... ... ... ... ..... ted. Hence we are satisfied that the Collector has got the powers to suspend the licence, where immediate action is called for and the violation committed by the Custom House agent is of a serious nature calling for an inquiry against him. We also agree that strict compliance with the principles of natural justice are not called for in passing this suspension order and party need not be heard at that stage. All the same, the basic requirement of Regulation 21(2) namely the necessity for immediate action and the nature of seriousness of the violation, for which inquiry is contemplated should be indicated in the suspension order, so as to make it self-contained and revealing, for any judicial scrutiny, as to satisfy that the Collector has applied his mind to these provisions. Holding this view of the matter, we set aside the order, but give the liberty to the Collector to pass a speaking order in confirmity with Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations.
-
1993 (3) TMI 230 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... t be a determining factor for holding such a set of designer kit. The framers of the import policy have also not defined as to the scope of the designer kit permissible for import. As seen from the learned lower authority rsquo s order the import is against a licence under Category D. 2.1(ii) of Appendix 17 and it would have been proper if enquiries had been made with the authorities like Central Leather Research Institute or in the trade to ascertain as to what goes by the term designer kit in the leather industry, whether it is a practice in the trade for a set of articles to be sold as designer kit comprising of certain specified items or there could be also variation in regard to the product mix. This having not been done we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is not a proper one and we set aside the order and remand the same for de novo consideration after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the light of our above observations.
-
1993 (3) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication order - Non-speaking order ... ... ... ... ..... e adjudicating authority, and therefore, the order is a non-speaking order requiring to be stayed on this ground alone. Shri Bhartia, learned JDR reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order. 2. We have gone through the impugned order and find force in the applicants rsquo submission. The adjudicating authority has set out all the contentions of the assessee but has not dealt with them and merely confirmed the demand in para 6 of the order holding ldquo There can be no doubt that the assessee created another small scale unit in their own factory premises only for the purpose of claiming higher modvat. rdquo We, therefore, stay the operation of the impugned order, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration in accordance with law. The adjudicating authority is to pass an order after dealing with all the contentions raised by the appellants and after affording them an opportunity of being heard in person.
-
1993 (3) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Order - Adjudication Orders ... ... ... ... ..... d therefore, were, not required to be entered in the RG 1 Register. 3. We have heard both sides and perused both the impugned orders. We see substance in the contention of the ld. Advocate that the orders suffer from total non-application of mind. Though the adjudicating authority has set out the contents of the replies to the show-cause notices, we find that he has not discussed any of the contents thereof and has summarily confirmed the demands. We therefore, set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. 4. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. 5. We are constrained to observe that we are frequently coming across orders passed by this particular officer showing total lack of application of mind resulting in unnecessary work for the Tribunal and for the Collectorate to whom the matters are remanded for fresh consideration and in addition resulting in likely harassment to assessees.
-
1993 (3) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... tries specified in the Schedule hereto annexed from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. THE SCHEDULE 1. emsp Coir Industry, 2. Cashew Industry, 3. Tanning Industry, 4. Oil Mill and Solvent Extraction Industry, 5. Rice Milling Industry. (Notification No. 115/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 as amended by Notification No. 122/75-C.E., dated 5-5-1975). rdquo 5. From a plain reading of the said Notification, it is dear that, the exemption is applicable only when the goods fall under Item No. 68 of CTA. In the aforesaid case of Kusum Products Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, supra, and Lalitha Imports and Exports v. Collector of Customs, Madras, supra, it has been ruled that Add Oil falls under Item 12 of the Central Excise Tariff. In view of this, we agree with the learned SDK, Smt. Ananya Ray, that the benefit under the said Notification 115/75-C.E. cannot be extended to Acid Oil. 6. In the result, the impugned Orders are upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1993 (3) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sewage - Whether liquid or solid ... ... ... ... ..... i.e. arising in industrial establishments. Further from the definitions of liquid given above, liquids are fluids, flowing or capable of flowing. 11. A pump has been defined as a machine for raising of fluids i.e. gases or liquids. 12. Conversely, anything which is capable of being raised by a pump, if not a gas will be a liquid, since a pump can only raise a fluid which term includes only gases and liquids. 13. Further as seen from Marks Standard Hand-Book for Mechanical Engineers, 8th Edition, products like glue which contain suspended adhesives in a liquid as also lime water which also contains suspended particles in water, are included in the category of liquids, so are molasses, tar and wood pulp - obviously in a fluid form i.e. pulp mixed with water. 14. In view of these definitions, the findings of the Collector (Appeals) holding that sewage being essentially muddy water and hence is a liquid is in order. In view of the above, the department rsquo s appeal is rejected.
-
1993 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Man-made fabrics - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal by a majority view. In such circumstances, it is held that the plea of the appellants that they cannot be charged with suppression of facts for invoking period of demand under Section 11A has to be accepted. Therefore, it is held that the demand of duty which is beyond six months under Section 11A is not sustainable and is set aside. As regards the offence of non-accountal, the narration in the Panchnama shows that the goods confiscated had been found fully processed and cured and Shri S.A. Kawatra, one of the partners, has in his statement dated 4-7-1984 admitted that quantity had not been accounted for in R.G. 1 Statutory Register because he could not attend to the factory due to heavy rain. In the circumstances, the confiscation for non-accountal is in order. In view of the finding, as above, regarding limitation, the quantum of penalty is to be modified and accordingly, it is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- from Rs. one lakh. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1993 (3) TMI 224 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Proforma Credit - Refund by cash or cheque ... ... ... ... ..... und, to a person who has not paid the duty and also a prohibition for granting refund of the credit in cash or by cheque. In the circumstances, I accept the appeal of the department and hold that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has erred in directing grant of refund. Shri Gwalani, however, pleads that they are not interested in cash refund but the credit should be given to them and the procedural violations should not stand in the way of extending the proforma credit to them. At this stage I am not able to ascertain whether there is a substantive compliance with the requirement of Rule 56A for giving credit in the proforma account. This aspect has to be considered afresh by the Assistant Collector before whom the respondents have to move an application for proper consideration in the context of the provisions of Rule 56A and also in the context of the case laws cited by him. Refund claim filed by them cannot, in any case, be entertained for the reasons stated above.
-
1993 (3) TMI 223 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ls and synthetic rubber form part of the compound providing insulation to the electric wires and cables. They are components in a sense, physically present in the final product namely insulated wires and cables. All the components of a final product cannot be produced in a single stream. There could be more than one stream for different components. Rubber compound, being a component, gets manufactured separately and used in the manufacture of wires and cables. Hence, viewed in this background, it has to be construed as an intermediate product. In view of this, the benefit of Rule 57D is available to them. Credit of duty paid on synthetic rubber and other chemicals would be available for payment of duty on insulated wires and cables, notwithstanding the fact that rubber compound, which is a component, occurring at the intermediate stage, is exempted. Hence, the appeal is to be allowed on merits as well. 5. In the result, the impugned order passed by the Collector is set aside.
-
1993 (3) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... s not convincing and reasonable. As rightly contended by the appellants rsquo counsel, the reasoning of the Collector noted above is a mere surmise. It is well settled that the proof of marketability of the product has to be placed by the Department. In the instant case no evidence has been relied upon. The most important aspect is the question of shelf life of the product for which, no finding has been recorded despite the test results having been Obtained and appellants seeking a finding on it. The rulings of Supreme Court in Bhor Industries case, Maize Products case, Ambalal Sarabhai case (supra) and Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (44) E.L.T. 794 are quite relevant to the facts of this case. Applying these rulings, the orders of the lower authorities have to be set aside by allowing this appeal. 4. Respectfully following the above ratio, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants.
-
1993 (3) TMI 221 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) , BOMBAY
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... dopting discriminatory practices vis-a-vis imports of the Appellant and his competitors. It is obvious from three Bills of Entry, detailed above, that prior to as well as post the imports of the Appellants, the Lower Authority has been allowing FLOAT GLASS to be cleared without any hindrance under the Import Policy AM 1992-97. This shows that he is not consistent in approach, for the assessment, as well as the interpretation of the policy. 17. I am firmly of the view that, firstly, the Appellant is an actual user of the goods, i.e. FLOAT GLASS, for use in the manufacture of Mirrors and secondly, Decorative Mirrors are permissible Consumer Durables 18. In light of the foregoing, they are clearly not hit by the Negative List in terms of the clarification of the CCI issued through I.P. Circular No. 20/92-97 dated 18th January, 1993, excerpted hereinabove. ORDER 19. m light of the foregoing, I set aside the impugned order and order consequential relief, if any, to the Appellants.
-
1993 (3) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the case of Delhi Plastics v. Collector of Customs 1988 (36) E.L.T. 360 (stated to have been upheld by the Supreme Court) and pleaded that the appeals should be dismissed and there should be no reduction in any of the amounts adjudged against the appellants. He also opposed the debiting of the licence with the declared value only, submitting that it is the ascertained value which should be debited in view of an amendment brought under Section 2E of the Imports and Exports (Control) Order, 1955 which equated the value for the purposes of imports as being the same as under Section 14E of the Customs Act. rdquo Accordingly, we are of the view that it is a fit case where penalty should have been imposed. 6. In view of the above observations, we uphold the levy of penalty at Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five lakhs) and uphold the imposition of redemption fine at Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rs. Six lakhs and fifty thousand). The findings of the lower authority are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification list ... ... ... ... ..... -2-1992 Impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) 17.1 It would, therefore, be observed from the events mentioned against 19-3-1990,2-4-1990 and 22-5-1990 that a final approval of the classification list in respect of Glucose Syrup did not take place. Since B-13 Bond had been executed in view of the Superintendent rsquo s letter it appears that the approval was provisional so far as Glucose Syrup is concerned. 18. Since the entire correspondence as referred to above in the events is not on record, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion either way whether the classification lists in the instant case were approved or not. If these were not approved, as appears tentatively on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the whole controversy in my view was pointless. Sd/- emsp P.C. Jain Member (T) 19. In view of the majority decision the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Sd/- K.S. VenkataramaniMember (T) Sd/- S.L. PeeranMember (J)
-
1993 (3) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... emption notification dated 20-4-1961, whereby all chemical samples issued by manufacturers of P and P Medicines were exempted from payment of duty. The issue before the High Court was whether in that case, proforma credit could be availed of. The Hon rsquo ble Court on appreciation of the statutory provisions, however negatived the contention that proforma credit vide Rule 56A could be availed of. Though the provisions dealt with by the Bombay High Court were of Rule 56A, with Modvat scheme having its nexus in the basic principles of said rule, and the situation being identical as the one here, the ratio of the said decision would stand attracted here, and as such, the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in Re Good Year India (supra) come in conflict with the views of Bombay High Court, and give rise to ah issue whether the said judgment could have a persuasive value for this Bench. 15. I therefore endorse the order as proposed by Brother R. Jayaraman, Member (Technical).
-
1993 (3) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refractory Bricks ... ... ... ... ..... luding a combination of machines consists of individual components (whether separate or interconnected by piping, by transmission devices, by electric cables or by other devices) intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function covered by one of the headings in Chapter 84 or Chapter 85, then the whole falls to be classified in the heading appropriate to that function. The Explanatory notes under Heading 84.14 of CCCN is also extracted supra from the ruling of SAIL rsquo s case. The regenerator has become an integral part of the furnace and applying this note, the regenerator would have to be classified alongwith furnace. The SAIL rsquo s case has clearly laid down the principle on this aspect. The ratio supports our finding. The regenerator having become an integral part of the furnace, die refractory bricks imported in this case for replacement therein are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the notification. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits.
-
1993 (3) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand - Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ers. No mention is made about the procedure to be followed, when the importers themselves are the manufacturers. Rule 57G does not make any provision for such an endorsement. On the contrary, in the said Rule, Bill of Entry is duly specified as the relevant document for availment of credit. Read in the light of the provisions of Rule 57G, the said Trade Notice makes provision for availment of credit, even when the Bill of Entry is not available to the manufacturers, which exigency could arise when the manufacturer is not the importer. Here the appellants themselves are the importers. The Bill of Entry is in their own name. The objection raised therefore cannot be sustained and has to be rejected. 6. Under the circumstances, except for Rs. 300/- being the difference between CVD and credit taken, none of the demands raised and confirmed by the lower authority could be sustained and the order, in relation thereto is set aside. 7. The appeal is thus disposed of in the above terms
-
1993 (3) TMI 215 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... er or carton or boxes, then the fact that these are, in turn, used in the manufacturing process in relation to biscuits at the packaging stage will clearly justify the grant of modvat benefit. In view of this position, we feel the matter is clearly in favour of the appellants. It is somewhat ironical that goods which are thus used in relation to the manufacture of the final products through the stage of other products had to run the gauntlet of the adverse decisions and appeals simply because of the entry ldquo packaging materials rdquo in the Explanation Clause of Rule 57A which was apparently intended only to enlarge the benefit or resolve doubts to ensure that such inputs do not become losers in the modvat stakes. The specific and enlarged definition of manufacture under Section 2(b) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the East End Paper Industries Ltd. case should set the position at rest. 8. The Appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (3) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption from duty claimable at appellate stage - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... rounds or not. For, the merits of the ground proposed to be raised as additional ground are always examined at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. To be brief on the point, allowing a party to raise the additional ground does not mean the acceptance of the ground on merits, as it is to be decided after hearing both parties on the merits of the case. 12. In the light of the above discussion, my answer to the question, as to whether the additional grounds raised by the appellants to be allowed is in emphatic ldquo YES rdquo . 13. In the result, I answer the points of difference No. 1 in lsquo negative rsquo and alternative question in lsquo affirmative rsquo . 16-3-1993 Sd/- (G.P. Agarwal) Member (J) 14. In view of the majority decision the Miscellaneous application for raising additional grounds in the appeals is allowed and the appeals may be posted for hearing on merits. Dated 18-3-1993 Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani)Member (Technical) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran)Member (Judicial)
............
|
