Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2009 2009 2009 (9) Central Excise - 2009 (9) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 184 of 184 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 24
Jurisdiction – investigation proceedings by central excise officer – held that - In the present case, the accused have been appearing in the case since the date when summons were first made returnable on 04.05.1989. The delay in the instant case is purely on account of callous attitude on the part of the prosecution. It may also be noted that in so far as the aspect of revenue loss is concerned, the same is subject matter of the proceedings before a Division Bench of this Court. The delay in the instant case has clearly deprived the accused of their fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The accused no. 2, as noted hereinabove, is 86 years of age. Accused no. 3 is 48 years of age. The matter is at the pre-charge stage. In view of the long delay, it is quite obvious that the prosecution will find it quite hard, if not impossible, to secure conviction, given the long gap of time since the prosecution first commenced. – trial proceedings quashed
-
2009 (9) TMI 8
Carpets – classification - non-woven carpets - whether non-woven carpets having exposed surface of polypropylene are classifiable under heading 5703.20 as "jute carpet" to justify concessional rate of duty or whether the said non-woven carpets are classifiable under heading 5703.90 as "other carpets” – Held that - Revenue's case has been constantly rejected at all the three levels, namely, in the adjudication order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, in the appellate order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and in the Tribunal. - Such decisions have been rendered on the basis of the relevant materials and after analyzing the evidence on record as also the provision of Section Notes and Chapter Notes. - Such concurrent findings by the lower authorities are interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 35L of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 only when such findings are patently perverse or are based on manifest misreading of any legal provision. Here none of these situations is present. – revenue’s appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 7
Carpets - Classification - Rules for the Interpretation of the Schedule - manufacturers of carpets by interlacing yarns of three different types, namely, jute, cotton and polypropylene – predominance of jute or fabric - Tribunal held that such carpets were clearly classifiable as jute carpets as the test of predominance of jute over other single textile material is the deciding factor for classification purposes. – Held that - Since the goods admittedly fall under Chapter 57 and consist of more than two or more textile materials, it has to be classified on the basis of that textile material which predominates by weight over any other single textile material. As in the goods in question jute admittedly predominates by weight over each other single textile material, the said Carpet could only be classified as jute carpets and nothing else - the mere fact that the surface of the carpet is polypropylene fiber, it does not cease to become jute carpet - the most specific description shall be preferred to the heading providing a more general description – Decision of the Tribunal upheld.
-
2009 (9) TMI 6
Floor Covering – classification - non-woven floor coverings where the basic fabric is jute – revenue’s case is that the exposed surface is made of synthetic textile material like polypropylene felt or polypropylene fiber and as such these goods cannot be classified as non-woven jute floor coverings – Held that – tribunal held that, It is seen from the manufacturing process as explained by the learned advocate that the carpet is manufactured in a continuous process and the said carpet is to be considered as of one identity rather than as having separate identity of having a exposed surface and under surface. The tacking of the fibers of polypropylene and jute to be further needle punched into Hessian cloth brings into existence one commodity that is carpet. – Held that - It is well known that the tribunal being the last authority on fact, it is not proper for this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 35 L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to disturb such findings of the tribunal since such findings are based on evidence – revenue’s appeal dismissed.
....
|
|