|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 252 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 148 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand- Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... uo goods rdquo and the Department not having produced an iota of evidence to the contrary, the Department has failed to discharge the onus cast upon it. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Calcium-bi-Sulphite Solution prepared and captively consumed by the appellants in the manufacture of Wood Pulp cannot be termed as ldquo goods rdquo attracting excise duty. 14. emsp Having held that the claim is barred by limitation and that Calcium-bi-Sulphite solution prepared by the appellants is not ldquo goods rdquo exigible to duty, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the other contentions raised by the appellants referred to in para 7 above. 15.In the result, we hold that - (a) emsp the entire demand is barred by limitation (b) emsp the Calcium-bi-Sulphite Solution prepared and captively consumed by the appellants in the manufacture of Wood Pulp is not ldquo goods rdquo exigible to duty. 16. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (4) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... H.S.N. Notes that Heading 87.04 includes heavy and light dumpers. The catalogue and H.S.N. Notes are only of persuasive nature and they themselves are not decisive factors in our view. Item should be classified not by mere name but it should be classified according to nature, construction, characteristics and end-use of the product with reference to the specific headings in the tariff. We find that this issue requires further examination with reference to the construction, characteristics and actual use of the vehicle and, accordingly, the matter will have to go back for re-examination. The appellants may make use of this opportunity in adducing additional evidence, if any, in support of their contention and to raise issues such as time barring and other issues during the course of readjudication. Thus, the matter is remanded to the concerned Collector for readjudication and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellants.
-
1995 (4) TMI 146 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bail - Cancellation of ... ... ... ... ..... n the court, for the reasons amply and appallingly made clear above, so that it may serve as a lesson for all concerned, and also for upholding and maintaining the dignity of the court and sanctity of the orders passed by it. 13. emsp In the above premises, we allow the petitioner rsquo s instant application. The bail granted to opposite party No. 1 accused Pawan Kumar Didwania by the order of this court dated 10th May, 1993 be hereby cancelled. The opposite party No. 1 accused is hereby directed to surrender before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta within seven days from this date. On his failure to do so, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, shall issue appropriate processes for securing his arrest and production before him for being detained in custody in connection with the relevant matter. 14. Let a copy of this order be forthwith sent down to the said Magistrate for his information and strict compliance. Satya Narayan Chakraborty, J. - I agree.
-
1995 (4) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the proper classification of the product and further observed that if, with reference to that ground, further, enquiry was felt needed a remand would be the proper order. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Diamond Cement Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 823. The grounds raised by the appellant pertain to the exigibility and dutiability of the items in question. This additional ground goes to the root of the issue. The effect of allowing these grounds is to be looked into after hearing the main appeal, i.e. as to whether it is a case for remand or not? Therefore, taking into consideration the ratio of several citations referred to above, the miscellaneous application of the appellant is required to be allowed, and it is ordered accordingly. 7. emsp In parting, we wish to mention, that both the sides have cited several citations which has no bearing on the issue. This should be avoided, as it would save much of Court rsquo s time.
-
1995 (4) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Footwear - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... authority and 1/2 H.P. pasting machine did not belong to the respondents. It is clear from the fact that it belonged to the independent contractor and it is not even the case of the Department that the contractor was solely employed by the respondents or that 1/2 H.P. machinery belonged to the contractor was being exclusively used for the manufacture of footwear by the respondents. The Collector (Appeals) has observed in his order that contractor Shri Bahadur Singh Karan Singh was providing job work to many others and hence same could not be deemed as being used by the respondents for the manufacture of footwear by them. Since the respondents have fulfilled one of the conditions of the exemption Notification 88/77 as amended, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower authorities in granting exemption in terms of aforesaid Notification. In the view we have taken we uphold the impugned order and accordingly appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ecessarily same meaning has to be given to this endorsement and the authority which issued the SSI certificate would be in the best position to clarify the position that in a case where the unit has been given on lease whether the SSI certificate earlier issued would continue to be valid for availing the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86. We have set aside the orders of the learned appellate authority in those cases and referred the cases for reconsideration after getting clarification from the concerned authorities of the State Government. Following the ratio of the earlier decisions we therefore set aside this order also with the direction that the learned appellate authority should get a clarification from the concerned State authorities who have issued the certificate in regard to the status of the SSI certificate issued in the event of a unit being taken on lease by another person. The appeal is therefore allowed by remand on the above terms.
-
1995 (4) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability of intermediate products ... ... ... ... ..... ppeal is required to be allowed in terms of the Hon rsquo ble High Court rsquo s judgment. 5. emsp The Learned JDR, Shri Somesh Arora conceding all these points submitted that the Revenue has, however, filed an appeal before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and the same had been admitted without any stay. 6. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have also perused the copy of the judgment produced by the appellants as delivered by the Hon rsquo ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Hon rsquo ble High Court has quashed the impugned show cause notice and has held that the impugned goods are not subjected to excise duty and has also held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and that they are not covered by any licensing control order under Rule 174A of Central Excise Rules. 7. emsp In view of the Hon rsquo ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and the proceedings having been quashed, we, therefore, allow this appeal.
-
1995 (4) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... rness of procedure since the very charge of forgery is founded on the list allegedly issued by the licensing authorities. It is also open to the adjudication authority to make such enquiry deemed fit and proper with the persons concerned in the office of the Licensing Authority to find out the circumstances and facts relating to the charge of forgery to the list appended to the license as per law. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the issues and taking also consideration of the fact that the goods in question are still with the department without being redeemed by the appellant we set aside the impugned orders and remit the appeals for re-consideration by the original authorities in accordance with law and in the light of the observations above, after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination as directed, we make it clear that it is open to both sides to adduce such evidence as is relevant for deciding the issue in accordance with law.
-
1995 (4) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... milling industry do not cover the oil. The machinery for the working of the oil seeds, for the working, crushing etc., of the oil seeds correctly fall under Heading No. 84.79. The appellants have also raised a point that in some other places similar machines are being assessed under Heading No. 84.37. Those matters are not before us. The details of those products are also not on record. It will not be proper for us to comment on the assessments with regard to those products which are not the subject matter of the present proceedings. 13. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we consider that the product oil expeller is not a machinery used in the milling industry, and is not classifiable under sub-heading No. 8437.00 of the Tariff it is also not eligible for exemption under Notn. No. 111/88-C.E., dated 1-3-88, and that the CCE (Appeals), Bombay has rightly classified them under sub-heading No. 8479.00 of the Tariff. 14. Accordingly the appeal is rejected.
-
1995 (4) TMI 139 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - OGL - Actual user ... ... ... ... ..... d as under ldquo Engaged in the manufacture of any goods for which it holds a licence or Registration Certificate from the appropriate authority, wherever applicable. rdquo and has taken note of the fact that the SSI certificate of the respondents was endorsed for slitting and packing of X-Ray films. Based on these, he has come to the conclusion that the respondents have to be considered as actual users. We observe from the letter of the Government of India, Department of Industrial Development, that a person holding a SSI certificate could carry on business based on that pending the issue of the carry on business licence from the Department of Industrial Development, for the purpose of notification issued by the said Department. In view of above we hold that the respondents have satisfied the conditions of being the actual users for the purpose of importation of Medical X-Ray films in jumbo rolls. We therefore find no merit in the pleas of the Revenue and dismiss the appeal.
-
1995 (4) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Zinc Ash imported ... ... ... ... ..... ore 1-3-1981, the countervailing duty should be levied under Item 68 at the appropriate rate. The orders of the lower authorities that the benefit of Notn. No. 104/73, dated 21-4-1973 (sic) is available only to indigenous goods produced locally, is clearly not supportable in view of the Madras High Court judgment in the matter of Saigal Industries v. CBEC reported in 1980 (6) E.L.T. 547. In the light of the above observations, we order the goods be assessed under the Item No. 68, CET for the purpose of countervailing duty. The appeal is thus allowed and the order passed by the lower authorities set aside. rdquo 7. emsp In view of the above discussion and having regard to the fact that there is no evidence on record to disprove the certificates of the shipper and the Sydney Chamber of Commerce to the effect that the imported zinc ash had arisen during the zinc smelting operations, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1995 (4) TMI 137 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Promissory Estoppel - Export House Certificate ... ... ... ... ..... nts. The burden was on the Government to show that the public interest demanded in its acting otherwise than in accordance with the promise which was held out to the petitioner. In these circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold that the Government was not bound by its Policy as framed for 1988-91 which would entitle the petitioner for Export House Certificate for a further period of two years. The respondents have not discharged the burden of showing that the subsequent change in the Policy retrospectively was actuated by public interest and by nothing else. 18. In view of the above reasons, the present petition is allowed and the impugned Policy for 1990-93 which tended to operate retrospectively, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue Export House Certificate (EHC) with its validity till March 31, 1993, in accordance with the entitlements of the petitioner for the relevant period. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT
Conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and also under the provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
Held that:- It is necessary that courts dealing with offences under the NDPS Act should be very careful to see that it is established to their satisfaction that the accused has been informed by the concerned officer that he had a right to choose to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It need hardly be emphasised that the accused must be made aware of this right or protection granted by the statute and unless cogent evidence is produced to show that he was made aware of such right or protection, there would be no question of presuming that the requirements of Section 50 were complied with. Instructions in this behalf need to be issued so that investigation officers take care to comply with the statutory requirement and drug peddlers do not go scot free due to non-compliance thereof. Such instructions would be of great value in the effort to curb drug trafficking. At the same time, those accused of possessing drugs should, however heinous their offence may appear to be, have the safeguard that the law prescribes.
For the reasons aforestated, the conviction of the appellants under the NDPS Act and the sentence imposed upon them for the same must be set aside.
For the conviction of the appellants under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act no separate punishment was awarded. The High Court has not dealt with the aspect of these offences. As find that the `panchas’ did not support the evidence of PSIs Rathod and Rana, which further weakens the case that `charas’ was found in the possession of the appellants. We cannot, therefore, sustain their conviction under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 3411 had held ldquo To our mind, it appears that the Tribunal has adopted an easy course in remitting the matter to the Collector. On the materials, on record, being an appellate authority, the Tribunal itself should have analysed the evidence and given a factual conclusion. rdquo 24. emsp In view of the above, I agree with the learned Vice President that the goods under consideration are excisable, and classifiable under sub-heading No. 7308.90 of the Tariff and that the appeal filed by the Revenue merits acceptance and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. Sd/- (Lajja Ram) Member (T) Dated 6-4-1995 FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the goods are excisable and classifiable under Heading 7308.90 The impugned order is therefore set aside and the department rsquo s emsp 2 appeal is accepted. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Lajja Ram) (S.L. Peeran) (S.K. Bhatnagar) Member (T) Member (J) Vice President dated 17-4-1995 dated 10-4-1995 dated 6-4-1995
-
1995 (4) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Sugar - Excess production rebate ... ... ... ... ..... made between sugar which originally did not reach a stage of marketability for whatever reason, have to be re-processed and sugar which was first marketable but owing to storage or other reasons became unmarketable and had to be re-processed. There may be some support for the Department rsquo s view in the latter situation. In the former situation, however, the sugar must be considered to have been manufactured only when it became marketable. The appeal itself says that in the present case, the total production in 1972 season included 2479 quintals of yellow and brown sugar. It is this quantity which was re-processed in 1973. This lends support to the view that this quantity was not marketable in the form in which it was produced in 1972 and only reached this stage in the next year. It must, therefore, be considered the production of 1973. 8. emsp In this view of the matter, the Collector rsquo s finding has to be upheld. We, therefore, dismiss the Department rsquo s appeal.
-
1995 (4) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT
Whether any excise duty was payable on the manufactured yarn prior to 15-7-1977 when an earlier notification dated 18-6-1977 exempting such yarn from payment of excise duty was in operation, only because the ultimate fabrics got manufactured from such yarn on and from 15-7-1977 when the earlier notification stood rescinded?
Held that:- The yarn manufactured by the appellant composite mills from 18-6-1977 upto 14-7-1977 and removed for captive consumption and used as such during that time in the spinning department for manufacture of fabric will not be liable to bear any excise duty as per the latter notification dated 15-7-1977. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 132 - ITAT PUNE
Appellate Tribunal, Power To Rectify Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... ot been considered, the submissions made which have a vital role have not been dealt with and the impact of legislation and law on the issue of valuation have not been considered. 35. I have very carefully studied the judicial decisions brought to my notice by the learned Senior Departmental representative. In my considered view, the decisions relied upon by him do not advance the department s case. In my view, therefore, I find it a fit case for accepting the miscellaneous petitions for the reasons mentioned above. I therefore, agree with the conclusion of learned Judicial Member. In these circumstances, I hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the prayers made in these miscellaneous petitions of the assessees to recall the order in question for consideration in accordance with law and taking into account all relevant material deserves to be accepted. 36. Now, the matter may be placed before the Hon ble Bench for appropriate action. I order accordingly.
-
1995 (4) TMI 129 - ITAT PUNE
Assessing Officer, Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Expenditure Incurred, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1995 (4) TMI 128 - ITAT PUNE
Cash Payments, Dissolution Of Firm, Income Tax Rules, Legislative Object ... ... ... ... ..... ounts, the total assessed income would work out only to around 0.30 of the total turnover. In this connection, we may also refer to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Nahgi Lal s case wherein it has been held that where no evidence of exceptional or unavoidable circumstances in making payments by cross cheques has been produced, the deduction of such payments cannot be allowed. Summing up, we hold that there was no case of exceptional or unavoidable circumstances in the present case which rendered making of payments by crossed cheques/demand drafts impracticable or rendered cash payments unavoidable or out of sheer necessity. The case does not fall within the ambit of rule 6DD(j) read with the CBDT circular and, therefore, the two revenue authorities were justified in making and sustaining the disallowance under section 40A(3). This issue shall, therefore, stand decided against the assessee. 9. to 12. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1995 (4) TMI 127 - ITAT PUNE
A Partner, Charge Of Wealth Tax, Closely Held Company, Net Wealth, Partnership Firm, Reversionary Value, Share In Partnership
............
|
