|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 125 - SUPREME COURT
Rubber rolls ... ... ... ... ..... d vulcanised rubber (Item 40.16). Accordingly, rice rubber rolls were found to be correctly classifiable under Heading 40.16. This view was strengthened by the Explanatory Note at Serial No. 9 under Item 40.16 of the Harmonized Commodity description and Coding System (HSN), upon which the present excise tariff is based. That Explanatory Note states that Heading 40.16 includes other articles for technical uses including parts and accessories of machines and appliances falling under, amongst others, Section XVI. 6.Item 40.09 does include tubes, pipes and hoses which are not designed to perform the function of conveying air, gas or liquid, but, having regard to the construction of rice rubber rolls and the use for which they are designed, we think, for the reasons that we have indicated above, that the Tribunal was right in arriving at the conclusion that they should be classified under Item 40.16. 7.The appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the products manufactured by the petitioners and listed in the paragraphs 2 and 4 of the petition are `drugs and medicines' within the purview of the aforesaid Notification No. 14/41/81-Fin. (R & C) and No. 5/5/87 (R & C)-8 - Held that:- Whether the products manufactured by the assessee can be treated as ``drugs or medicines'' cannot be answered straightaway. The medicinal content of the products, if any, has to be ascertained. Its curative function has to be found out. Can the product be called a medicament at all? Is it used to cure or alleviate or to prevent disease or to restore health or to preserve health? Are these products treated as drugs or medicines in common parlance? These are basically questions of fact. There was no reason for the assessee-company to by-pass the statutory remedy and come to the Court with a writ petition. These questions basically of fact should be agitated before the statutory appellate authority.
Thus the assessee should not have been allowed to by-pass the statutory remedies where the questions of fact could have been properly agitated and ascertained.The appeal, therefore, is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
-
1997 (2) TMI 123 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... r in revision passed by the Collector is not an order of adjudication, but only an order passed in revision of the order of adjudication. That being the case, the Board could not invoke its power under Section 35E(1) of the Act to further revise the revisional order of the Collector. 2. We agree with the views of the Tribunal. The Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 122 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he Tribunal examined the composition of the blended yarns and came to the conclusion that the goods will not fall under any of the two heads, but will have to be classified under residuary entry 68. 3. We have examined the reasoning given by the Tribunal. In view of the principles laid down in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 36 (S.C.). We are of the view that the Tribunal has come to a correct decision. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 121 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... d by it. It is, therefore, obvious that the respondent Unit has completely closed down and even the parcel of land owned by it has been disposed of and, therefore, we see no reason in permitting the appellant to pursue this appeal. We dispose of the appeal for want of prosecution since the respondent cannot be served. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 120 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assessable value of the goods manufactured by assessee during the period 1983 to 1986 had not been correctly determined inasmuch as the appellant had claimed inadmissible deductions from the price realised from its dealers on account of, amongst others, "normal trade discount" although a substantial part thereof represented advertisement expenses and expenses on after sales service which were includible in the assessable value?
Held that:- As to the after sales service that the dealer was required under the agreement to provide, it did of course enhance in the eyes of intending purchasers the value of the appellant's product, but such enhancement of value enured not only for the benefit of the appellant; it also enured for the benefit of the dealer for, by reason thereof, the dealer got to sell more and earn a larger profit. The guarantee attached to the appellant's products specified that they could be repaired during the guarantee period by the appellant's dealers anywhere in the country. Thus, though one dealer might have to repair goods sold by another dealer and incur costs in that regard, he also had the benefit of having the goods he sold reparable throughout the country. The provision as to after sales service, therefore, benefited not only the appellant; it was a provision of mutual benefit to the appellant and the dealer.
We think that in adjudicating matters such as this, the Excise authorities would do well to keep in mind legitimate business considerations.We cannot help but observe that the reduction of the trade discount by two percentage points would not have occurred to the adjudicating authorities, being an unlikely estimate, but for the fact that the 2% here realised ₹ 50 lacs and odd. The appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 119 - SUPREME COURT
Oils - Interpretation of exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... tured in factories of the oil mill and the solvent extraction industry. The appellants goods are goods manufactured in a solvent extraction plant and must, on the plain words of the notification, receive the benefit of the exemption that it confers. 4. It will be noted that for ten years the appellants goods received the benefit of the exemption conferred by the said notification. In 1986 the notification was amended so as to exclude fixed vegetable oils of Heading No. 15.03 and vegetable fats and oils of Heading No. 15.04. Had there been any intention to exclude essential oils and oleoresins produced by solvent extraction plants from the scope of the said notification, the amendment thereto would have so specified. 5. We, therefore, are unable to share the view of the Tribunal and must set aside its judgment and order. 6. The appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the Tribunal under appeal is set aside and the order of the Collector is confirmed. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT
What is the wholesale price, on which the excise duty is payable, of the fabrics which are manufactured by the appellant-Company?
Held that:- On the basis of the evidence on record and what was stated in the said order, we came to the conclusion that the proper assessable value would be the purchase price which was paid by M/s. Agarcon to the said 4 firms. The basis for coming to this conclusion was that these four firms were mere shadows and the transactions through them could not obviously be regarded as the genuine transactions. This being so and also considering the fact that the so called wholesale dealers neither had the finances of their own and nor did they have any storage capacity, the only obvious conclusion was that this was only a device which was adopted by the appellant with a view to depress the assessable value for the purpose of excise. This is further strengthened by the fact that M/s. Agarcon is only known as the agent of the appellant and the goods were manufactured according to the designs and specifications given by M/s. Agarcon. Therefore, the conclusion which was arrived at by the Tribunal was correct and calls for no interference. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... was conscious of the consequences thereof. Having heard Mr. Dave, we find that the case is, atleast in part, covered by the judgment of this Court aforementioned. We do not therefore, find that the appellants have a good prima facie case before the Tribunal. 4. The plea of financial loss was not ignored by the Tribunal, as submitted by Mr. Dave, because the Tribunal gave the appellants time to make the deposit. The sum of Rs. 65,65,020/- was to be deposited within a period of 6 months in three instalments. In the circumstances, that was not inappropriate. 5. We find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, but we extend this indulgence to the appellants that they may now deposit the sum of Rs. 65,65,020/- in the Tribunal within 6 weeks from today. If they fail to do so, their appeal before the Tribunal shall stand dismissed without further reference either to this Court or to the Tribunal. 6. The appeal is, disposed of accordingly. 7. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT
Tar - Interpretation of exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... the 24th April, 1962, from the payment of the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. Notification No. 121/62-C.E., 13-6-1962 as amended by Notification No. 133/82-C.E., dated 22-4-1982 4. The Exemption Notification exempts tar falling under Item 11 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The meaning of tar has to be gathered from the Tariff description given in clause 5 of Tariff Item No. 11. An inclusive definition has been given to Tar which includes partially distilled tars and blends of pitch with creosote oils or with other coal tar distillation products . Therefore, tar will include everything which has been included in the extended definition. Having regard to the wording of the Notification and wording of the Tariff Item No. 11, we have no doubt that the product of the assessee (PCM) qualifies for the benefit of the Exemption Notification. The order of the Tribunal dated 8-8-1989 is set aside. The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT
Whether 1st respondents in these civil writ appeals could be said to be `persons aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 so that they could challenge before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 5th June, 1989 agreeing with the notings made by the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 31st May, 1989 recommending release of the imported goods to the common appellant on payment of full customs duty?
Held that:- The High Court had committed a patent error of law in taking the view that the concerned writ petitioners before it had sufficient locus standi to prefer appeals before CEGAT. The decision of CEGAT holding that they had no such locus standi was perfectly justified on the scheme of the Act and it was wrongly set aside by the High Court. Consequently the appeals will be required to be allowed.
As the proceedings are pending since long before the High Court so far as the aforesaid challenge is concerned it would be in the interest of justice to request the High Court to decide the said writ petition on the merits of the question regarding the legality and property of the order of Collector/Assistant Collector of Customs dated 5th June, 1989 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order at its end.The appeals are accordingly allowed. The common judgment under appeal as rendered by the High Court is quashed and set aside with a direction to the High Court to decide on merits.
-
1997 (2) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT
Whether assessee entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 169/77-Cus., dated 6-8-1977 claiming that the blankets imported by them were for printing fabrics?
Held that:- Any amount of fancy printing on a carboard would not make it a carton. In the process of manufacturing the printed cartons, the cardboard has to be cut, printed, creased and given the shape of a carton by using paste or gum. Simply because there are expensive prints on the carton, it would not become a product of the printing industry.
Judgment of Rollatainers Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [1994 (7) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is a complete answer to the argument advanced by appellants. The Garden Silk Mills Ltd. produces fabrics. These fabrics may or may not be printed. If any printing is done, the fabric will not cease to be fabric and Garden Silk Mills Ltd. will not cease to be a textile industry and become printing industry. The benefit of the notification will not be available to the appellants. Against assessee.
-
1997 (2) TMI 113 - SC ORDER
Appeal to Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) and this Court was of the view that the assessee should be allowed to raise this point before the appropriate authority. In view of this decision, we remit the case back to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The assessee will be at liberty to apply in accordance with law for necessary relief and the Assistant Commissioner is directed to examine the facts and decide the case in accordance with law. 2. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 112 - SUPREME COURT
Proforma credit - Weigh Bridges - Parts thereof ... ... ... ... ..... ation on countervailing duty because countervailing duty was different from duty of excise and is not contained in the list under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6.In our view, this approach is erroneous and frustrates the purpose of the notification. The notification gives relief to parts produced in the factory and also the parts produced elsewhere. For the parts which are not produced in the factory, the procedure laid down in Rule 56A has to be followed. 7.The appellant s claim is that it is liable to pay additional duty of excise (countervailing duty) on the parts which had been utilised in manufacture of weigh-bridges. Therefore, there is no reason to deny it this relief given by notification by following the procedure laid down in Rule 56A. 8.We are of the view that the appellant s contention must be upheld. We set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the order passed by the Collector dated 19-10-1983. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 111 - SC ORDER
Piston Engines - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... oms Tariff Act. 2. We may also notice that when on an earlier occasion, a show cause notice was given for violation of the import regulation, the appellant s case was that what it had imported do not constitute Internal Combustion Piston Engines but only certain components. The appellant cannot now turn round and say that the sub-assemblies imported by it constitute i.e. piston engines. 3. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in substance an appeal against the order contained in letter of the Assistant Collector dated 23-11-1981 even though it had to be read with the earlier letter dated 2-7-1981 to make out the final order passed by the Assistant Collector. On this view, the appeal filed to the Collector on 7-1-1982 was presented within the prescribed period of limitation and the question of condonation of any delay does not arise. We hold accordingly. 4. In view of the above conclusion, it is clear that dismissal of the appeal by the Collector as time-barred is untenable for the above reason and, therefore, that appeal is required to be heard on merits. The Tribunal s order has also to be set aside for this reason. 5. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. the impugned orders dated 25-1-1982 passed by the Collector and dated 21-4-1989 by the Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh decision of the appeal on merits treating the appeal to filed in time.
-
1997 (2) TMI 109 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... 1A(iv). On further appeal, the Tribunal, after examining the goods, held that It is clear, nor is it in dispute, that the subject goods are rotating tools and they are designed to be fitted into machine tools. And, such tools designed to be fitted into machine tools clearly fall under Item No. 51A(iii), CET. 2. We do not see any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT
Project import ... ... ... ... ..... l the three authorities that the present appeal is filed. 2. The relevant part of Item 84.66 of the Tariff entry was brought to our notice. It provides that all items of auxiliary equipment as well as, all components (whether finished or not) or raw materials for the manufacture of the aforesaid items and their components, required for the initial setting up of a unit, or the substantial expansion of existing units, of a specified power project would be eligible for assessment as project import. 3. The very language of the entry would indicate that vehicles which are used in the shifting of transformers would not constitute an integral part of the power project and would, therefore, not attract the provision of Entry 84.66. We are, therefore, of the view that the authorities below have rightly construed the entry and we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the authorities. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT
Grinding discs ... ... ... ... ..... g and cutting of tobacco leaf or for cutting or rolling tea leaves, machines for mounting card clothing nuclear reactors. 4. A reading of the Entry 84.56 would show that the machinery, to fall under the said Tariff Item, should be a machinery for inter alia grinding or mixing earth, stone, ores or other minerals substances, in solid (including powder and paste) form. 5.We find from a perusal of the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has not gone into the question nor has it decided the issue whether the Soda Ash falls within the scope of the expression earth, stone, ores or other mineral substances in the said entry. Admittedly, the goods concerned herein are meant for grinding Soda Ash. 6. Without deciding the aforesaid it may not be possible to decide correctly the question of classification. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with the law. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT
Demand - Limitation - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... that the appellant s price list was not correct. What is the effect of the amendment is a question of law. The question is on the day when the price list was filed, was there any wilful suppression? The appellants may have wrongly understood the effect of the amended law granting exemption. That will not make it a case of wilful suppression of facts. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that this is not a case of wilful suppression. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 14-9-1988 must be set aside. The show cause notice dated 29-8-1981 is quashed. The second show cause notice dated 14-9-1981 can be enforced only for the period 15-3-1981 to 30-6-1981. The appeals are partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 3. The appellant states that they are entitled to the refund of the amount deposited with the Tribunal. If they apply for the refund of the amount, The Tribunal will deal with it in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed hereinabove.
............
|
