|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 337 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prosecution - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... Singh returned as he informed R. S. Tomar that partner contacted and we would call him from the hotel and deliver the goods to him. He also contacted Rabinder Singh Tomar and told that Manohar Singh could not be contacted and there could be a problem in the delivery of the goods. 10. emsp The other accused were apprehended with the car containing the narcotic articles. The petitioner Manohar Singh was not present at that time. Even if the statements of the above-co-accused are to be taken into consideration, they do not go to show that the petitioner had taken any part in the incident. There is no evidence regarding his being abetment and criminal conspiracy. 11. emsp When this is the position, this revision deserves to be allowed. 12. emsp Hence, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, Annexure P-1 and the charge-sheet, Annexure P-2, so far as they relate to petitioner Manohar Singh are quashed and the petitioner is discharged.
-
1996 (8) TMI 335 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn - Cellulosic spun yarn ... ... ... ... ..... y considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that issue involved with reference to Rule 49A(1) has been covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. In that case, it was specifically held that fabrics continue to be unprocessed under Rule 49A even after calendering and shearing. In terms of Rule 49A(1) it is clear that in respect of unprocessed fabrics yarn duty is payable at the appropriate duty and 11/2 of the duty payable on such cellulosic spun yarn. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the plea of the appellants that item in question (yarn) is liable to duty at the appropriate duty at the relevant time in addition to 11/2 of the duty. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to go into the issue with reference to Dharmada rsquo since it is of no consequence as it was observed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (8) TMI 334 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... log, but Peeling Roller is a core of a log left out when it cannot be peeled any further. Peeling Roller and Peeled Wood are two distinct things. Wood Peeled, according to the Collector, means sheets of slice, peeled out of a log, but Peeling Roller is the core of a log left out when it cannot be peeled any further. Peeling Roller is a piece of wood of round cross-section derived after peeling, urges the Memorandum of Appeal and reiterated by the learned S.D.R. Hence, the term/criterion lsquo thickness rsquo as is used for determining the excisability of the products falling under Heading No. 44.03 is not at all applicable in the case of Peeling Roller. It has been further urged that the explanation of the description of the products given in the Explanatory Note (2) to Heading No. 44.05 clearly shows that Peeling Roller is to come under Heading 44.05. rdquo 3. emsp Consequently, Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed and the lower appellate authority rsquo s Order is confirmed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 333 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... for that reason therefore the Chapter Note 4 would cover the item as imported and the same would therefore fall under Tariff Heading 8534. We observe as brought out in the pleas of the learned SDR that the resistors prepared by film technique even if it is in capsule form and if it is fitted with necessary terminals or leads the same would fall under Tariff Heading 8534. The question to be considered as urged by the learned Advocate is when there is a specific item for resistors whether the item in that event can be assessed under Tariff Heading 8534. We observe that 8533 is a general item for all resistors and out of that the category of resistors which answers to the description under circuit have been taken out by Chapter Note 4 under Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff. In that view of the matter we find no difficulty in holding that the item would be assessable under Tariff Heading 8534. We therefore in the circumstances allow the appeal of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 332 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... lant must have obtained the copy of the order from the notice board after 22-12-1988, in the absence of a reply from the department to his letter dated 22-12-1988. Appeal has been filed on 6-3-1989 well within three months after 22-12-1988. From the foregoing narration of facts, it is apparent that the department has substantially contributed to the delay, after 3-6-1987, in late filing of the appeal, by not replying to the appellants rsquo letter dated 3-6-1987 onwards. Delay subsequent to 3-6-1987 cannot be attributed to the appellant in this case. Prior to 3-6-1987, the delay has been explained due to appellant rsquo s illness and his treatment at Calcutta, as discussed above. 34. emsp Accordingly, even assuming the deemed service of the impugned order on 1-12-1986, I am of the view that there was sufficient cause for the appellant to file the appeal as he did on 6-3-1989. Delay is thus liable to be condoned. I order accordingly. This answers the second question before me.
-
1996 (8) TMI 331 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Paper/Pulp Moulding Plant - Project imports ... ... ... ... ..... nsuming work that it was decided to have a separate heading for the various raw materials, components etc. imported for setting upon substantially enlarging specified projects. The fact that an item is classifiable under Heading 98.01 therefore does not mean that it cannot be classified under any other heading. In fact, it would be more correct to say that although the item is classifiable on merits under another heading it has been decided for purpose of convenience to classify under Heading 98.01. It would therefore follow that the identity of the item has been classifiable under any other heading is not lost. Since it is open to the importer to avail of any one of two or more exemption notification available, as has been discussed above, the appellant has rightly claimed the assessment of the goods under the notification which was more beneficial to it. This is the finding that the Commissioner (A) has arrived at and we find no ground to disagree. 6. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... contended by the appellant. Hence, the present appeals. 3. emsp The appellant has time and again stated that the amounts collected as forwarding charges were nothing but amounts collected as averaged freight in the case of various consignments and, therefore, besides meeting the transport expenses, there was no surplus left out of the amounts collected as forwarding charges to be added to the assessable value. The lower authorities have not held that the contention of the appellant that forwarding charges are only averaged freight charges is erroneous. Therefore, we take it that the forwarding charges collected are only towards averaged freight charges. In the absence of any evidence to indicate that the total freight charges paid by the appellant were less than the total forwarding charges collected by the appellants, the question of inclusion of forwarding charges in the assessable value would not arise. 4. emsp The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 329 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Wind up Buggy ... ... ... ... ..... nificance. If it is held that the item used for testing etc. can be considered to be an accessory because it is contributing to effectiveness to a piece of equipment such items would be accessories within the meaning of the definition in the dictionary. The exclusion of the second portion of the definition in the policy would appear to be a deliberate act in order to ensure that items which may otherwise be considered accessories would not be considered as accessories within the meaning of the policy. 10. emsp The observations of this Tribunal with regard to the relationship between a part and an accessory, contained in the decision in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 207 was in the context of the Central Excise Notification and the specific definition of Annexure in the policy was not considered. That decision has therefore to be distinguished. 11. emsp We have to conclude in the result the appellant has not made out a case that the goods were accessories. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 328 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electric Motors - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... motor designed for 380 and 385 voltage will be taken as to have been designed 8 less or 8 more voltage. 7. emsp There is no dispute that the actual marking on the motors was 380 and 385 volts. No evidence was produced before the Asstt. Collector that such motors marked with 380 and 385 volts were designed for use in circuits at a pressure exceeding 400 volts. The Asstt. Collector had observed that the assessee without actually satisfying the Department that the said motors were entitled to concessional rate of duty availed the benefit on their own and did not produce any evidence leading to their conclusions. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) have affirmed these findings of the Asstt. Collector. 8. emsp Keeping in view the factual aspect of the case, we consider that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 82/72-C.E. was not available and has been rightly denied. 9. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we reject this appeal. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 327 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cess - Textiles - Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... arise at all. Accordingly the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Guha is overruled. 6. emsp For the reasons aforesaid the demand notices which are Annexures ldquo O rdquo and ldquo F rdquo are set aside. It will be open to the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh in accordance with law. If any further proceeding is started in accordance with Rules 4 and 8 of the Cess Rules, by the Assessing Officer, the writ petitioner shall produce figures which would be obtained by them from the Central Excise Department there would require for the purpose of deciding the amount of cess payable by the writ petitioners in accordance with Rule 8 of the Cess Rules. If it is found that it would not be possible to get the figures from the writ petitioners before determining and/or assessing the value, the Assessing Officer shall call for such figures himself from the Central Excise Department. 7. emsp All parties concerned to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1996 (8) TMI 326 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants filed D.B. Excise Reference Application No. 103/88 before the High Court of Rajasthan under Section 35G(3) of the Act seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer to the High Court the questions of law arising out of the order dismissing the appeal. The High Court held that there is divergence of opinion of the High Courts and in such a situation, the proper course for the Tribunal would be to draw up a statement of the case and refer the same to the Supreme Court. It is accordingly that the present reference is made. 7. emsp The following question of law arises for consideration - 1. emsp Whether fabrication of bunker coils, cooling and condenser at the site is ldquo manufacture rdquo as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and whether such articles are excisable goods? 2. emsp Whether fabrication of bunker coils, cooling coils and condenser at the site attracts sub-item (3) of Item No. 29A of the Central Excise Tariff?
-
1996 (8) TMI 325 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Exemption - Notification ... ... ... ... ..... acturer, such cost cannot be part of assessable value. 3. emsp During the period in question the Respondent had availed the benefit of Notification No. 120/75, dated 30-4-1975. According to the show cause notice, the Respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the notification. 4. emsp From the language used in the impugned order, one gets the impression that the Collector was not satisfied that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of notification in regard to goods transferred to Depots and sold at the Depots. But the Collector observed that since the notification was no longer in force, the issue of admissibility or otherwise of the benefit of the notification was merely of academic interest as the noticee had availed the benefit during the period the notification was in force and the question of withdrawing the benefit did not arise. We do not think we should interfere with this observation. 5. emsp We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (8) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Invoice price assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e sale of such goods is the invoice price. There is no dispute that the invoice in these cases shows separately the price charged for the sale of goods and the training charges due to the manufacturer. Of these amounts, it is only the price charged for the sale of the goods which is to be regarded as invoice price. The charges for training included in the invoice do not become invoice price unless the Department is able to show that a part of the invoice price was suppressed and recovered in the guise of training charges. The Department has no case that a part of the invoice price was collected in the guise of training charges. Therefore, the training charges which are admittedly charges for the training to be given in future by the manufacturer to the employees of the buyer cannot be regarded as part of the invoice price. 5. emsp We set aside the impugned orders holding that the training charges collected are not to be included in the assessable value. The appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 323 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Customs House Agent ... ... ... ... ..... unsel for the appellant. It cannot, therefore, be held that the appellant as an employee of M/s. J.C. Banerjee and Sons - CHA, has acted without authority. I further agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel that there was nothing in the documents received by the appellant on behalf of his employer to create a doubt in his mind that the L.C. received by him was not genuine and not for the consignment under consideration. The appellant, therefore, filed the CTD in good faith and to the best of his knowledge and belief. There is no justification for imposition of any penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, I allow the appeal of the appellant, and set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) imposed on him in the impugned order. Pre-deposit of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) made by the appellant in terms of Tribunal rsquo s Order No. S-95/CAL/1995, dated 7-3-1996 should be refunded to him as a consequential relief in terms of the aforesaid order.
-
1996 (8) TMI 322 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Modvat - Waste ... ... ... ... ..... re is another Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of present respondents themselves reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 327 (Tribunal) 1992 (41) ECR 455 wherein the Tribunal had held that the provisions of Rule 57D have to be applied with reference to the nature and description of the inputs and the Tribunal held that on these consideration inputs which are in the nature of discrete articles like crown corks when damaged or rendered unfit for use during the manufacture of the final product will constitute waste which no doubt, may comprise of a part of the total quantity of the particular duty paid input received by the manufacturer. Following this decision, which is applicable to the facts of these cases, the demand on this quantity of crown corks is also not sustainable. Therefore even on merits there is no need to interfere with the order of the lower authority. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and appeals are therefore rejected.
-
1996 (8) TMI 321 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty-paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... re entitled for taking the benefit of Modvat credit. 3. emsp Shri Nanak Chand, ld. DR appearing on behalf of the department, reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 4. emsp The appellant took credit on the invoice issued by the unregistered dealer M/s. Arora Sales Corpn. Notification No. 64/94-N.T., dated 7-11-1994 read with Circular No. 76/94, dated 8-11-1994 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs provides that the documents issued by unregistered dealer prior to 31-12-1994 are to be acceptable if the said dealer has got himself registered till 31-12-1994. The appellants had not produced any evidence to show that M/s. Arora Sales Corpn. was registered with Central Excise Department till 31-12-1994. Even now on the query from the Bench, ld. Consultant was unable to show that M/s. Arora Sales Corpn. has got himself registered with the Central Excise Department. In View of these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (8) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... s and no attempt for removal had been made the order of confiscation and granting the redemption on payment of fine is not sustainable. The Tribunal followed the ratio of above mentioned decision in the case of M/s. Balls and Cylpebs v. CCE (supra). In the present case also there is no evidence on record to show that the appellants have removed the goods without payment of duty or there is any preparation having been made for such removal. In these circumstances, the confiscation of seized goods and granting an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/- is not sustainable in the light of the Tribunal rsquo s order referred to above. Applying the ratio thereof the order of confiscation and granting the option to redeem on payment of fine is set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, the personal penalty is reduced to Rs. 2,000/- for non maintenance of statutory records under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
1996 (8) TMI 319 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Jurisdiction - Limitation - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... akash Engg. Works were maintained at the office of M/s. Gopi Engg. Works. He has further admitted that the other two units have no machinery for manufacture and the goods sold in their name are manufactured by M/s. Gopi Engg. Works. All the averments along with the other circumstances clearly establishes that these three firms are one and the same. The decisions cited by the learned Consultant which we have referred to above do not deal with the situations as is in the present case. In this case, in the light of these admissions and the other facts which we have already discussed there is no other conclusion except to say that these three firms are one and the same. In this view, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authority and the demand of duty is in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the penalty imposed on M/s. Gopi Engg. Works is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The appeals are thus disposed of in above terms.
-
1996 (8) TMI 318 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Defective ingots and flaps ... ... ... ... ..... ted 12-7-1990 is the scrap and not the ingots and flats because the heading for ingots/flats are not mentioned in the order. In the Govt. order, Aluminium waste and scrap falling under 76.02 as also unwrought aluminium, whether or not alloyed under 76.01, both are shown as eligible for deemed credit, when however, under Chapter Note, waste and scrap which are unusable as such are taken as scrap, Heading 76.02 has to be read as used in the same way as is defined under the Chapter Note, and is deemed to have included all the items, which fall within the category of waste and scrap and on reading the same accordingly, the objection raised could not survive. There is no evidence that the ingots received were otherwise serviceable. Denial of Modvat credit thus does not appear justified, and the order cannot be sustained. 9. emsp In the result, the Appellants succeed on both the counts and therefore while allowing the appeal, the order is set aside. Consequential reliefs to follow.
-
1996 (8) TMI 317 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat - Duty paying documents - Adjudication -Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... 91/- is concerned, the rejection of the same only on the ground that the discretionary powers were invested in the officer only at a subsequent stage, does not appear to be justified. The investiture of the powers is an administrative act and have to be exercised in adjudicating the case which comes before him, irrespective of whether the cause of action for the same has arisen at an earlier date. The bar of retrospective operation is applicable only when there is a statutory alteration in substantive law. This is not the case here. Under these circumstances, so far as the said demand is concerned, the order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to examine the said aspect keeping in view the fact that the discretion is available to him for allowing or otherwise, of the Modvat credit on the document other than the specified documents, when the required document is reported to be missing. 5. emsp The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
............
|
