|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 444 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 379 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... college student, who had done this only to augment his pocket money. In the entire transaction he earned only Rs. 100/-. Against that the prosecution against him was still under way. He had to undergo preventive detention also. And therefore he was pleading for mercy with the reduction of penalty. 9. emsp I considered the submissions of financial constraints. The penalty imposed upon Ravi Ganguly under Gold (Control) Act is nominal i.e. Rs. 500/- and under the Customs Act it is Rs. 5,000/-. The appeals were heard on his having deposited Rs. 1,000/-. The penalty upon Bharat was Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 5,000/- respectively. He was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty under the Customs Act, and Rs. 2,500/- under the Gold (Control) Act. Purely on the consideration of the financial hardship of the two appellants I order reduction of penalty to the extent already deposited by them in pursuance of the stay order. 10. emsp The appeals are allowed to this extent only.
-
1999 (3) TMI 378 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Review - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... cept the contention of the assessee that the application under Section 130 was barred by limitation. He passed orders after considering the merits, overruling the Assistant Collector s order hence this appeal. 2. emsp The appellant is absent, and requests for decision on merits. We have heard Departmental Representative who adopts the reasoning in the impugned order. 3. emsp The right to file the application contained in section 130 was extinguished after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the Assistant Collector s order. Such extinguished right could not to be revived three months later by amendment of section 130. It is no doubt true that procedural law is, retrospective, but such retrospectivity cannot be applied to revive an extinguished right. The subsequent amendment to section 130 therefore did not revive the earlier right. The Collector s application therefore was clearly barred by limitation. 4. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
1999 (3) TMI 377 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ence of 11.2 between the two sets of prices. A plain reading of the sentence does not give such an impression. There is no break up in either of the annexure to the show cause notice of the difference in price. Copies of the relevant invoices were also not available. Therefore, it is not possible for us to agree that enhancement of the price proposed in the notice included the agency commission of 2 . On the contrary, the notice seems to suggest that this 2 is not included in the difference in price. It would thus follow that by the addition of 2 agency commission to the assessable value, the Collector has travelled beyond the scope of the notice and increased the value on the basis of factors which it had not been proposed would be done. 11. emsp The order cannot be sustained on this score. Hence we do not address ourselves for the other specific arguments on valuation advanced by the appellant. 12. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief, if any.
-
1999 (3) TMI 362 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Saltpetre and potassium nitrate are not distinct but the same products ... ... ... ... ..... da. rdquo 10. emsp Here the definition of saltpetre is an inclusive one and therefore it will take in its ambit saltpetre which is manufactured from saline earth, kherinum and every form of sulphate or carbonate of soda as well as saltpetre by any other process, synthetically or otherwise. In the appellants case the product has been classified by the department under 28.34. In other words, it has not been treated as a mineral product or as a miscellaneous chemical product and since the explanation extends the scope to saltpetre by whichever process it might be manufactured, therefore, it is required to be treated as covered by notification and hence exempt. In this connection we also take note of the fact that in the Condensed Chemical Dictionary by G.G. Hawley potassium nitrate has been described as follows Potassium Nitrate (niter nitre saltpetre) KNO3 11. emsp In the above circumstances, we have no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is rejected.
-
1999 (3) TMI 361 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Evidence - Technical Experts’ opinion - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... be set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration by the Original authority who shall have to apply both tests before arriving at a considered opinion. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, we set aside the Order-in-Original impugned and remand the matter to the ld. Original authority for reconsideration on de novo basis. It shall be opened to the appellants to produce whatever evidence and other grounds for consideration of the ld. Original authority who shall also give them a hearing on the matter. It is clarified that if the ld. Original Authority finds it necessary to cause a re-verification/re-inspection of the said furnace by any technical authority to enable him to apply the aforementioned two tests in the matter, he shall be at liberty to do so provided the results thereof shall be made available to the appellants before the matter is considered on de novo basis by the ld. Original Authority. The appeal succeeds by way of remand with aforesaid directions.
-
1999 (3) TMI 360 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural Justice - Cross-examination ... ... ... ... ..... vide his letter dated 21-3-1994 (Page 100 of the paper book) and that the notice for hearing on 30-6-1994 was sent to him at his new address and he appeared, but asserts that no notice for any subsequent hearing was ever received by him. We are of the view that it was incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to issue notice of hearing to R.K. Jain after conducting cross-examination of Narayan Singh and non-issue of notice for personal hearing subsequently has resulted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as far as the 3rd appellant is concerned. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi for de novo adjudication after extending an opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine the Director (Antiquities) of the Archaeological Survey of India and after extending to the appellants an opportunity of being heard before passing fresh orders. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (3) TMI 359 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... age that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act directing the appellants to deposit 30 of the duty demanded by the Asstt. Commissioner and to give bank guarantee for the balance And the learned Counsel has assured that the bank guarantee would be kept alive and the appellants have already deposited Rs. 19,02,703/- vide TR 6 Challan dated 25-9-1998. This is apart from bank guarantee for Rs. 43,20,148/- in terms of the aforesaid order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We consider that their request for taking this fact into account is reasonable and we accept it. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider any further deposit was not called for. The stay application is disposed of in the above terms. The appellants shall ensure that the bank guarantee is kept alive during the pendency of the appeal. It is also clarified that in view of the above order, the recovery of balance of duty and the penalty is stayed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 346 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Nickel oxide sinter dutiable ... ... ... ... ..... ndustires these appeals are required to be disposed of in the light of that judgment. Hence the prayer for keeping the matter pending is not accepted, further for the reason that these appeals are of 1986. 11. emsp We notice from the judgment of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Khandelwal Metal Industries that Counter veiling duty is leviable even on goods which are not manufactured in India. As regards the prayer that imported item is not manufactured in India and the same is not required to be classified under TI 68 as they do not form a class of goods by themselves, we notice that this issue has also been dealt with exhaustively by Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India supra. Therefore, the issues in these appeals are since answered by the Apex Court and there is no other question requiring our attention, hence respectfully following ratio of the same judgment, all these appeals are rejected on merits.
-
1999 (3) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Finishing agents used in textiles and leather - Exemption - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... hose opinion is a general one, and is not based on actual testing of the samples of the products. The appellants had also furnished the opinion of Dr. V.A. Shenai of Bombay University who confirmed that the products in dispute were finishing agents or softners used in textile industry for softening of textile fabrics and that the products, as seen from the tests carried out by the University of Bombay, Department of Chemical Technology, should not be considered as organic surface active agents. 5. emsp We, therefore, hold that the report of the Chemical Examiner is most relevant and is required to be relied upon for the purpose of classification of the products in dispute. Based upon the Chemical Examiner rsquo s report, we hold that all the four products fall for classification under C.E.T. sub-heading 3809.00 and are eligible to exemption in terms of Notification 101/66 which is available to goods falling under Chapter 38, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
-
1999 (3) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... dicine should not be equated with the produce marks. rdquo The Apex Court approved the decision of Madras High Court in Indo French Pharmaceuticals Co. 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 478) which was upheld by the Division Bench of Madras High Court as reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 725 (Mad.) wherein it was held as under ldquo a close reading of the Explanation, however, in my view indicates that the marks, symbols, monogram, medicinal preparation or its container should be such as to indicate that the medicine is a special preparation made by the manufacturer. The connection between the medicine and the manufacturer contemplated under the Explanation should be such as to indicate that the manufacturer has a proprietary interest in the medicine. rdquo 5. emsp In these facts and circumstances and following the ratio of the above referred case, we hold that the medicine in question is not a patent or proprietary medicine and accordingly we set aside both the orders and allow both the appeals.
-
1999 (3) TMI 337 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture - Re-manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... terlite Industries, the process involved in remaking of the defective goods which could be termed as manufacture. The process involved in the case of Sriram Pistons also amounted to remelting and re-manufacture. However, in the latter two cases the Tribunal has gone clearly on the ground of an ambiguity in the structure of the contested rule. The Ld. Collector in his order has also stressed this very point. 7. emsp In the present case although the process of remaking was almost identical to the process of manufacture, it did not involve the degree of processing which was before the Tribunal in the two cited cases. On this ground I find that the Collector was correct in applying the ratio to the present proceedings. The benefit would continue to be given to the assessees until the existing ambiguity in the said rule is resolved. 8. emsp On this ground I see no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore dismiss this appeal. 9. emsp The Cross Objection also stand disposed of.
-
1999 (3) TMI 336 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit - Demand - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... f M.S. Scrap was already on record, if the Assistant Collector was not clear as to what was the source of scrap, he should have made enquiries from the respondents and taken steps to obtain a more specific declaration. However having failed to do so, the ratio of decision in the case of Remson India Ltd. supra would apply in this case and at this belated stage it would not be open for the revenue to challenge the said declaration as being too broad and unspecific. It is also nobody rsquo s case that Ship breaking scrap would not fall within the broad category of M.S. Scrap under Chapter 72. As far as the rest of the declaration is concerned, there is no allegation that the final product was not correctly declared and the same final product has also been obtained from the Ship breaking M.S. Scrap. Therefore I do not find any compelling reasons in the revenue rsquo s appeal which forces me to interfere with the Order-in-Appeal impugned. The revenue appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1999 (3) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... 44. Further, Supreme Court in the case of Dokka Samuel (supra) held that the Omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for reviewing the prior judgment saying that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In view of these conflicting views and in view of importance of the subject matter it will be more appropriate to refer the matter to a Larger Bench and to resolve the issue. Accordingly, the view expressed by the Hon rsquo ble Vice President is concurred with. Case file is returned to the original bench to pass an appropriate order. Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (J) 32.In the light of the majority view the issue as emsp to whether a subsequent decision of the Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court can form the basis for rectification of mistake in terms of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, is required to be referred to a Larger Bench. Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) Member (T) Date 14-12-1999 Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Date 14-12-1999
-
1999 (3) TMI 331 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... gible for exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987. 4. emsp Ld. Consultant reiterates the grounds taken-up by the importer in the matter before the Collector (Appeals) and seeks for dismissal of the appeal on those grounds. 5. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has already gone into the issue in great detail and has held that ldquo Saws rdquo are parts of machinery falling under Chapter 84 and in view of the structure of the tariff parts also falls under Chapter 98.06 and has held that the item is required to be classified only under 98.06. The Larger Bench has also examined the applicability of Notification No. 69/87 and have opined that in view of Sl. No. (xi) of the proviso, the items in question are excluded from the benefit of notification. 6. emsp In that view of the matter, respectfully following the Larger Bench judgment as above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 330 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Cross arms 2 pin, Ground pipes and clamps for PCC poles, Horizontal cross arms, LT/HT single top support, Anchor rods - Dutiability of
-
1999 (3) TMI 329 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication order ... ... ... ... ..... lour. rdquo 8. emsp The contention of the appellant is that the Collector of Central Excise has no power under the Central Excise Act or under the Rules to issue such Addendum. Ld. S.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue could not show any provision of Act or of Rules a empowering the Collector of Central Excise to issue such Addendum after passing the adjudication order. We find that once an adjudicating authority has passed an order, he become functus officio and will have only limited jurisdiction in correcting the error apparent on record or clerical mistake. In the present case, the adjudicating authority issued impugned Addendum after 16 months from the passing of the adjudication order confirming the demand of duty in respect of cement oxide colour, whereas we find in the order portion of the adjudication order, there was no whisper of this demand. Therefore, the impugned order confirming the demand is not tenable in law, hence is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 328 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI Exemption - Registration ... ... ... ... ..... firmation that the registration certificate has to be treated as effective from the date of application particularly when date of commencement of production which is prior to the date of issue of certificate is mentioned in it. Therefore, it follows that in the present case the appellants were having provisional certificate even prior to the date of demands in question. Therefore, the permanent certificate issued was nothing but confirmation of the provisional certificate and hence the entire period gets covered in terms of the permanent certificate. The permanent certificate gives the date of production as February, 1985, therefore, the demands raised for the present period is deemed to be covered by the permanent certificate issued in the year 1987, hence the Commissioner rsquo s findings cannot be followed which has since found approval from the ratio of the Judgment cited. 4. emsp In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and hence, the same is rejected.
-
1999 (3) TMI 327 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... case to the effective evidence and also having the machine examined by the Engineer. Ld. SDR submits that the matter is required to go back to the original authority as both the authorities have not examined the evidence to come to the conclusion as to how the item is a part of an accessory as the case may be. He submits that the issue requires to be re-determined. 5. emsp On consideration of these submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be remanded to the original authority to re-examine the issue in the light of the above discussions and full evidence that could be produced by the importer in the form of Chartered Engineer rsquo s Certificate and also by having the matter examined through experts to find as to how both the imported items are functioning. The respondents shall be heard in the matter before a detailed order is passed. Thus the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to original authority for de novo consideration.
-
1999 (3) TMI 326 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty for wrong availment of Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... r misdeclaration in a specific way. 5. emsp We have gone through the records of the case and we find that penalty has been imposed on the basis of the letter issued on 14-1-1987. The department did not collect any evidence before levy of penalty that we feel is wrong. No doubt, the show cause notice also does not specifically mention under what Rule penalty was going to be imposed. In the impugned Order a penalty has been imposed for violation of Rule 173Q(bb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The letter dated 14-1-1987 does not, ipso facto, give a carte blanche to the authority to impose a penalty. They ought to have investigated further and collected the evidence before penalty could be imposed by giving the copies of the evidences to the assessees for making a proper reply. We are, therefore, of the view that imposition of penalty in this case is not called for. We therefore, set aside the imposition of penalty and order accordingly. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
-
1999 (3) TMI 325 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Paper book - Rectification of defects ... ... ... ... ..... e same was opposed by the Counsel and pointed out that the appeal is not maintainable and it is not accompanied by the original authorisation issued by the Commissioner and in terms of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of C.C.E. v. Raghuveer Textiles as reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 647 the appeal is required to be rejected. 3. emsp On a careful consideration, we notice that in this matter the revenue had been given enormous opportunities from 1996 to rectify the defects. We notice that the revenue has not taken care to produce proper Paper Book and the entire papers are in Xerox form. It has also not legible and not readable. Despite granting them enough opportunities the revenue has not produced the authorisation issued by the Commissioner. Therefore for not rectifying the defects and non-production of authorisation from the Commissioner and in terms of the noted Supreme Court judgment, the appeal is dismissed. The stay application as a result is also rejected.
............
|
