|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 58 of 58 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 189
Sample - Re-testing ... ... ... ... ..... examination and drawing of samples. When the test report was questioned by the appellants the other samples were not sent for re-test. This, coupled with the fact that the test results of the samples drawn by the customs officers of the ICD showed the product to be having more than 75 acrylic content is a factor in the appellants rsquo favour. Those test reports cannot be rejected as not applicable on the ground that the reference to containers from samples had been drawn was not there in the Test Reports as it has been explained by the appellants that samples were drawn by the officers on receipt of the goods in the ICD and before the goods were stuffed into the containers. The Bombay High Court judgment cited by the learned counsel is also supports the appellants rsquo case for acceptance of those test reports which are in their favour. In the circumstances, we hold that the impugnes order requires to be interfered with. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1997 (4) TMI 184
Classification of goods - Reclassification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... a part of general use and therefore they are excluded from the purview of the Notification. He also submits that the Collector held that the Assessee had not produced any catalogue or literature to prove that the items are parts of general use. We have considered the submissions. On perusal of the records and Bill of Entry, we notice that the authorities had originally assessed the item under Chapter heading 8430.91. Both the authorities have changed the assessment of the goods in the refund proceedings without initiating any proceedings for reclassification by issue of show cause notice giving reason for such reclassification. In view of the fact that the Department has accepted the classification of the goods under Chapter heading 84.13 as part of pump they do not come within the category of ldquo parts of general use rdquo for exclusion from the benefit of the Notification. Therefore, we accept the appellants claim and allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
-
1997 (4) TMI 182
Chromatograph - Benefit under Notification No. 105/89-Cus. not available. ... ... ... ... ..... not support the case that all the items constitute a single HPLC System and therefore he upheld the original assessment on merits. This order has been confirmed by the Collector. Ld. Collector has further added that the appellants could use these items as spares as indicated in the invoice. Therefore, assessment adopted at the original stage is in order. 2. emsp The appellants are not present but they have requested the case to be decided on merits. 3. emsp On perusal of the records, we find that the appellants have not produced the Bill of Entry nor they have produced the catalogue for our perusal. The appellants have not produced sufficient evidence to appreciate the point that the imported item is a complete HPLC system in knock-down condition. We noticed that the invoice also does not describe the item as a complete HPLC System. It only gives individual names of the parts and separate price. 4. emsp In view of these deficiencies and lack of evidence we reject the appeal.
-
1997 (4) TMI 180
Eligible for benefit of exemption Notification No. 123/81-C.E ... ... ... ... ..... ng site. Eventhough the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, seems to have taken the view that the Water sprinkler is not eligible for the benefit of the above said Notification in his order-in-appeal No. 77/87 (BM) for the reasons stated above, I am inclined to disagree with the above decision. I, therefore hold that Water sprinklers used in the mining area for suppressing the dust are eligible for the benefit of the above said Notification. Accordingly, I allow this appeal with the direction that the appellant be issued a CT3 certificate for obtaining the Water sprinkler without payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification 123/81-Central Excise, dated 2-6-1981 as amended. 4. emsp Since the issue involved in this case has been properly analysed by the Collector (Appeals) as can be seen and concurring with his reasoning we hold that water sprinkler is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 123/81, dated 2-6-1981. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 175
Valuation - Comparable goods ... ... ... ... ..... in Appeal No. C/807/89-A. The Department has not been able to find any material to show higher prices for Projector Lenses of Singapore origin of the same brand. In these circumstances, we find that there was no justification for loading the value. 3. emsp Alternatively, it is contended by the appellant, in the event of differential duty being demanded, rate of duty should be reduced on account of applicability of Notification No. 93/86. The lower authorities have denied the appellant benefit of this notification and this finding is challenged by the appellant. Our attention is also invited to Notification No. 69/87, dated 1-3-1987. Learned counsel made it clear that in case the appellant succeeds in the question of valuation, it would be unnecessary to consider the question of rate of duty or the benefit of exemption notification. In this view, we refrain from deciding this question. 4. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order. Appeal is allowed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 155
Trucks and Drills Spares ... ... ... ... ..... the production that can be treated as a production machinery. Admittedly, spares of the production machinery are exempted as specified in Serial No. 4 to the Table attached to the notification. On going through the detailed process and functioning of the trucks, it cannot said that it is a mere handling equipment. It plays an important part in the process of production handling of the ore and other activities as explained by the appellants are integrally connected with the process of production going by the nature of the industries and the various processes employed in connection with the production of the finished product, trucks and drills are essential and integral part of the production machinery at the plant. In the view, we have taken that trucks and drills are production machinery, we hold that spares of trucks and drills are eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 13/81. Accordingly, all these 6 appeals are allowed in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 151
Exemption - DEEC Scheme - Advance Licence - Import - Advance Licence ... ... ... ... ..... on 116/88, the infirmity found by the Addl. Commissioner in this case need not be fatal to the claim for duty free clearance against Advance licence, and, in coming to this view, the recommendation of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is also a relevant consideration who has no objection in allowing clearance against the Advance Licence produced, subject to the Advance licence being made ineffective for further import to the clearance of bonded goods so allowed, and also on condition that Addl. Licence against which import has been made would not be recredited for further imports. Therefore, it is felt that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, taking a liberal view will be in order, and, in such a view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of by holding that the goods imported in this case can be extended the benefit of clearance against the Advance Licences produced, subject to the conditions suggested by the licensing authority. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 150
Appeal - Limitation - Codonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... urable order had been obtained by documents which are of questionable veracity and the Tribunal cannot on that basis take a view in favour of condoning the delay because that would form the very crux of the case against the respondents now set up. Even if a prima facie view is expressed by the Tribunal, it will make the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) ineffective as that authority would certainly be influenced by the views expressed by the Tribunal. In this context, it is also useful to bear in mind the general principle regarding the condonation of delay which is that a litigant should not be easily permitted to take away the right which has accrued to its adversary by lapse of time. 6. emsp In the result, we are inclined to hold that this is not a fit case for condoning the delay of over one year in filing the appeal by the Commissioner. The COD application is, therefore, rejected. 7. emsp Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed on the ground of limitation.
-
1997 (4) TMI 143
Project import ... ... ... ... ..... e have also perused the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants. We find in the case of Ballarpur Industries Limited the facts were different. The contract for project import was already registered with the Customs Authorities it was subsequently de-registered whereas in the instant case the contract was not registered as project import with the Customs Authorities. The case of Mangalore Chemicals does not help the appellants in as much there is no specific finding about the registration of contract for the purpose of concessional rate of duty under chapter heading 84.66(ii). We also find that the case of Reliance Industries Limited does not support the appellants as the facts are different from the facts of the present case. 9. emsp Having regard to the above discussions and findings we hold that the benefit of concessional rate of duty under heading 84.66(ii) was not available to the appellants. In the result the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 142
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... technically for the purpose of carrying out certain procedures for the purpose of treatment of Urological problems. Prima facie X-Ray cannot be held as part of Urological procedures. So far as the plea regarding non-issue of show cause notice is concerned, prima facie we find the appellants treated the letter of demand as a show cause notice and joined the proceedings before the lower authority and, therefore, an appealable order was passed. Prima facie we hold that the requirement of issue of show cause notice substantially have been met. The learned Consultant does not have any plea regarding financial hardship. 4. emsp Taking into consideration, therefore, of the facts and circumstances of the case, we order the appellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) on or before 29th May, 1997 and reporting compliance on 30-5-1997. The pre-deposit of the balance amount stand dispensed with and the recovery of the same stayed pending the disposal of the appeal.
-
1997 (4) TMI 138
Benefit under notification to be given after verifying the requirements thereof ... ... ... ... ..... ering their claim in the light of the DGTD certificate produced by them. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. The party has produced D.G.T.D. certificate before the Collector. However, Collector rejected the plea on the ground that Notification No. 155/86-Cus. did not apply to the item in question. Ld. Collector had failed to consider the amended Notification No. 364/86, which has omitted the words ldquo falling within Chapters 84 or 85 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. rdquo Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled for the benefit under the Notification. Ld. D.R. has rightly raised the plea that the requirement is required to be verified for the granting benefit under Notification. Therefore, we remand the matter to the original authorities for re-examination of all these aspects and to grant the benefit to the importer if they satisfied all the conditions of the Notification. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 93
Prosecution - Sentence - Delay in trial ... ... ... ... ..... ed in such a case is why the Court should not impose more sentence because the law at that time provided for maximum sentence of five years. However, in view of some of the circumstances relied upon by the accused, the Court may not impose sentence more than the minimum prescribed, but we do not find that there is any special or adequate reason to award less than the minimum sentence. 8.In the result, we direct that each of the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment of six months. At the request of the learned Counsel for the appellants, they are given time of three months to surrender and also to approach the Supreme Court and obtain orders within the time. Accused to furnish surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each within 15 days from today. If such surety are not furnished, the order of sentence would become operative and would not remain in abeyance. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 88
Printing powder and inks ... ... ... ... ..... e a conventional printing ink it is akin to printing ink and heading 32.13 which is not limited to writing ink and printing ink but covers also other inks would, in our view, be more specific and therefore, more appropriate than heading 32.04/12(i). 2. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (4) TMI 84
Bond - Security - Appropriation of ... ... ... ... ..... refore the adjudicating officer absolved the master and the owner of the ship from any liability, was it was proper for him to have appropriated the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for satisfying the liability of the radio officer towards payment of the penalty which was imposed upon him. The answer has to be in the negative. 16.For the aforesaid reasons therefore I allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6-5-1996 to the extent of its appropriating the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from out of the money deposited by the petitioner under the bond in question for satisfying the liability of the payment of the penalty amount imposed upon Shri Hernani B. Villanueva, Radio Officer. Consequently the bond executed by the petitioners shall stand discharged. 17.The Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be returned to it by the respondents within three months from today. 18.No order as to costs.
-
1997 (4) TMI 83
Exemption for specified end use - Customs - Goods "used in the leather industry" ... ... ... ... ..... the goods were not only capable of being utilised as embellishment for shoes but also the goods were imported for the purpose. It has to be shown that the goods were actually used as embellishment. The Tribunal will examine the facts and dispose of the case accordingly. 5. There is a further point taken by the Revenue. This case arises out of an application for refund. Even if the importer succeeds on merit in this case, the refund cannot be granted to the importer automatically. If the assessee can prove that the burden of the duty has not been shifted to the consumer, the refund must be granted to the assessee straightaway. In that view of the matter the refund application will have to be considered by the Assistant Collector of Customs in the light of the judgment delivered by this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). 6. The appeal is finally disposed of with the directions given herein above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (4) TMI 82
Plastics - Scraps ... ... ... ... ..... e to the decision in law and the test is whether the Scraps were mouldable. Having regard to the nature of this Scrap, it cannot be said that the Explanation has made any difference at all to the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment in Bina Corporation s case. 3. It appears that this Explanation was not noticed by the Tribunal, although in the order under appeal the Appellate Collector specifically referred to and relied upon this Explanation. Under these circumstances, we are of the view the case has to be considered by the Tribunal afresh in the light of the Explanation-III to Entry 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1982. 4. We set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the case back to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after taking into consideration the said Explanation-III to Tariff Item 15A(2). 5. The appeals are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (4) TMI 81
Refund claim - Held that:- The question of refund will now be governed by the decision of this Court in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]
-
1997 (4) TMI 75
Whether claimants entitled to relief to customs duty payable at the time of clearance of the imported commodities?
Held that:- No legal foundation for both the appellants to secure the reliefs prescribed in Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. Appeal dismissed.
|
