|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 241 Records
-
1984 (11) TMI 336 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... compliance of the order of the Tribunal yielded no fruit. 12. The Departmental officials particularly Collectors concerned should be vigilant enough to see that the orders of the Tribunal are complied with immediately in the aid of justice. In this case, the Collector concerned has now complied with the directions of the Tribunal in filing paper-books as far back as on 21-9-1984. Though he has taken a lot of time to comply with the directions but in view of the explanation given by him that the file containing the papers was somehow detached from the case file and it remained untraced in spite of persistent efforts made by the Department is sufficient enough to restore the Appeal to its original number. 13. Under the circumstances, we hereby restore this appeal to its original number. The date of hearing be communicated to the parties as per the availability of the date in the working diary of the Bench keeping in view the fact that this appeal is of the year 1978.
-
1984 (11) TMI 335 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... earned Collector of Central Excise, Baroda could not be sustained and should be struck down. Further, the appellants had also put forth all the evidence available to show that the prices charged by the appellants for the goods in question were uniformly available to all parties including Hoechest. In this view of the matter also, the Department had no case at all. 6. Shri Jain, the learned SDR has not been able to refute any of the arguments advanced by Shri Engineer. We find substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants which are principally based on the Supreme Court decision, reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.) 1984 ECR 1237 (Union of India and others v. Atic Industries Ltd.). For these reasons the order of the Collector cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Collector. The consequential relief which flows as a result of the decision be given to the appellants.
-
1984 (11) TMI 334 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ade after the date of expiry, one could take the view that delay on the part of the department should not be pleaded by it against the interests of an applicant particularly when there nothing else is adverse to the issue of a licence. However, when the default is on the part of the licensee himself in that he does not apply for the renewal within the date of the expiry of the licence, the department cannot take a final decision regarding renewal within the period of validity of the licence. Refusal to renew of a licence which has already expired is an action that can be supported. Though in the appeal the loss to which the appellant is put to, since the licence has not been renewed has been adverted to, we take note that the appellant is currently in possession of a licence which would be considered for renewal at the end of this year and hence the plea of grave damage to the appellant by non-renewal would not exist at present. 9. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 333 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... s allowed to be cleared as such. It was open for the Department to have satisfied itself by a superficial inspection that the goods are in conformity with the Import Trade Control Regulations, but this was not done. The Department commenced weighment after 25-11-1982 and in fact, inspected the goods as and when found necessary. The report of inspection was also submitted to the Assistant Collector. Thus. the so-called order of clearance dated 14-12-1982 is not, in our view an order under Section 47 of the Act. The inspection of the goods having been completed when they were weighed in lorry loads, the satisfaction of the Department about non-prohibited nature of the goods, came to be established only after the date of formal clearance, we consider that the date of effective clearance of the goods is only 13-12-1982. In this view of the matter, the claim for refund is not hit by the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, but is maintainable. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 332 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... appears to be a standard commercial agreement and, besides, there was no allegation about this agreement in the show cause notice. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the two cases relied on by the Department - those of Shree Agencies and Bajrang v. Balkundri - do not help the Respondents. On this reasoning, imposition of penalty on the appellants cannot also be justified. 12. In the view we take it is not necessary for us to give a specific finding whether the appellants are manufacturers in respect of goods on which processes have been done or which have been manufactured by job workers. We may also add that necessary material and evidence for the purpose is lacking in the case. As a result of the aforesaid discussion-the demand of duty from the appellants is held time-barred and set aside. On the facts and circumstances and absence of necessary allegation and proof, penalty is also not justified and the same is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 331 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cisable article is sold at such place, after deducting therefrom the cost of transportation of the excisable article from the factory gate to such place." 8. The maximum price at which the excisable goods are sold at the place of removal is ascertainable in the facts and circumstances of this case and that is the controlled price which is inclusive of excise duty but exclusive of the cost of transportation. Once this is so, there is no question of adding anything to it, be it transportation charges or handling charges. Only the element of duty included in such controlled price has to be deducted from it to arrive at the assessable value. Accordingly, for the period between 11-3-1975 and 31-7-1975, the controlled price itself, being exclusive of excise duty, is the assessable value. 9. In view of our above observations the appeal succeeds and the matter is remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for re-determination of the assessable value in the light of these observations.
-
1984 (11) TMI 330 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ct the mischief of Chapter Note 2(c). No material has been placed before us by the Department necessitating a change in the aforesaid conclusion. Thus, Heading 39.01/06 is to be ruled out. Not being a separately defined chemical compound, it would not fall within Chapter 28 or 29. Since it is not specified elsewhere, the appropriate classification would be under Heading No. 38.01/19(6) as ”Plasticizers, not elsewhere specified". 16. The product involved in the proceedings relating to Fibre-Glass Pilkington is “Reoplex 400". This is a polymeric plasticizer of polyester type like ”Santicizer 429". The technical leaflet on the product says that it is a plasticizer for PVA. The discussions and the conclusion on “Santicizer 429", therefore, apply with equal force to ”Reoplex 400". 17. In the result, we hold that both the products fall under Heading No. 38.01/19(6). The show cause notice is vacated and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 329 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... uplicate Bill of Entry.” Though there is no direct reference to inspection of the goods in the order referred to, what has happened actually is inspection of the goods on various days; examination reports dated 21-6-1982, 22-6-1982 and 23-6-1982 indicate that “the goods were inspected, contents visible, steel scrap consisting of aged steel structural joists, angles etc. ”Thus, in effect the department has satisfied itself about the imported goods conforming to I.T.C. Regulations only contemporaneously with their weighment. Following the rational of our decision in appeal No. 285/84, we dismiss the present appeal also.
-
1984 (11) TMI 328 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ave not considered the survey report and as such, their orders suffer from non-consideration of material evidence. 7. Coming to the contention of Shri Gidwani that the appellants have not adduced evidence to establish pilferage, suffice it to say that the authority who adjudicated the claim and the appellate authority did not reject the claim on the ground that the appellants have failed to establish that pilferage took place when the goods were in the custody of the B.P.T. 8. On careful consideration of all the aspects, I allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector, MCD, for consideration afresh in the light of the observations contained in this order. The parties are also permitted to adduce such other evidence as they deem fit before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector shall however dispose of this matter within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1984 (11) TMI 327 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nt. That provisional assessment, he argued, was not valid for this claim. In other words, the claim on rate of duty is not protected by the provisional assessment on valuation. A provisional assessment for valuition cannot be a provisional assessment for classification-the two are separate. 20. However, after some time, the department’s counsel changed his mind and said he would accept the position that a provisional assessment for valuation was valid for classification also. In short, once a provisional assessment is taken, it acts as a provisional assessment for all purposes, whether valuation or classification. I am not able to accept this because then, it would mean that if an officer takes recourse to Rule 9B for rate of duty, he can, when he belatedly discovers that the value needs to be revised upwards, demand duty and, inspite of the time-bar, say that the provisional assessment for classification protects even a demand that arises from a higher valuation.
-
1984 (11) TMI 326 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ulled or modified. 36. The aforesaid Section provides that no order enhancing any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscating goods of greater value shall be passed under the Section, unless the person affected by the proposed order has been given notice to show cause against it within one year from the date of the order sought to be annulled or modified. 37. In the present case, the show cause notice issued by the Central Government does not propose either enhancement of any penalty or fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscation of goods of greater value. It is obvious that the Section referred to above does not apply to the present case. 38. In the result, we hold that the imported goods, namely, Moanda Natural Battery Grade MnO2 Ore fell for classification under heading No. 25.01/32(3) of the Customs Tariff Schedule of 1975 and not under heading No. 26.01(1) ibid. 39. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals allowed.
-
1984 (11) TMI 325 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... i-judicial authorities. In whatever capacity an officer of Custom may perform his function, he cannot consider himself to be a mere agent, for collection of revenue. Such an attitude, probably would have been welcomed or expected when the country was under an alien Rule whose main concern was to collect as much revenue as possible whether just or unjust, legal or illegal. After independence and particularly after the coming into force of the Constitution, there is a sea of change both in the attitude and functioning of the State. State at present is welfare State. Rule of law is supreme. Fairness in action is expected from all. Though the State need enormous finance to carry out its welfare activities it is no more interested in retaining the amount to which it is not legally entitled and which legitimately belonged or due to its subjects. This aspect shall have to be borne in mind by every Revenue Officer, particularly, an officer who is entrusted with quasi-judicial power.
-
1984 (11) TMI 324 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ld not be called a manufacture of asbestos fibre or mineral fibre. The Bench negatived this contention and held the goods to fall under Item No. 22F(iv). 14. In the Formica case reported in 1984 E.C.R. 1284 1984 (15) E.L.T. 590, this Bench was dealing with the classification inter alia of “glass treated fabrics”. However, in the absence of sufficient material on record the Bench did not give a definite finding on the classification (which was left to the lower authorities to redetermine) except that the classification under Item No. 22B C.E.T. was set aside. This decision is, therefore, of no help. 15. In the result, we direct that the product “epoxy glass textolite sheets” manufactured by the appellants shall be classified under Item No. 22F C.E.T. during the period relevant to the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants which shall be granted to the appellants within 4 months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1984 (11) TMI 323 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... uded in the assessable value. Dismissing the appeal the learned Bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment mentioned earlier and decided that this judgment gave a specific and direct authority for inclusion of such type of packing material which is in the nature of essential packing for a commodity like biscuits packed in loose form or in small packets which without the help of the secondary packing like large sized tin containers cannot obviously be marketed or dispatched from the factory gate. This judgment further strengthens our finding that the cost of secondary packing which the Assistant Collector initially ordered to be included in the assessable value is indeed to be included according to law. 14. For the reasons stated above, we accept the two appeals filed by the Revenue and set aside the impugned Orders of the Appellate Collector. Consequently, the orders of the Assistant Collector are restored. 15. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1984 (11) TMI 322 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of plants and generally considered to be mixtures of mixed glycosides, (see “Condensed Chemical Dictionary” by Gessner G. Hawley). 17. Thus, acid oils are recognised in literature as oils. If these are of vegetable origin, they would be classifiable as vegetable oils. Item No. 12, CET covers, as we have noted, all sorts of vegetable non-essential oils. There is nothing in the wording of the item to even remotely suggest that the scope of the item is confined to oils which are the immediate result of extraction from vegetable material. It could cover even oils which may be the result of refining or cleavage of such oils so long as they are recognised as oils. And we have seen that the authoritative book “Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products” recognises acid oils as oils. Item 12, in the circumstances, would be far more appropriate than the non-descript residuary Item 68. 18. In the result, I agree with my learned brother Shri Syiem.
-
1984 (11) TMI 321 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tled to the free clearances it wants and (2) if it is later told it was not entitled to the concessional clearances, it will not be able to recover the duty from the customer. Not only will it suffer a loss when central excise demands the reimbursement of the amount it will say was short paid, but may also incur penalties - not very inviting prospects. The factory also asked if it could adjust the excess duty paid during September, 1977 - a clear intimation that more duty than was due had been paid, and needed to be made good. It may be that adjustment as asked by the factory could not be permitted, but there can be no doubt that restitution of the excess duty was asked for. There is no question but that a claim was staked out, and the reasons and nature of the claim presented for the tax authority to see and examine. It is not easy to see why this cannot constitute a claim of refund. 3. The appeal ought to be allowed and I allow it as my two learned brothers have done.
-
1984 (11) TMI 320 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by passing these orders, which could have been salvaged by assuring and affording a real and meaningful opportunity to show cause to the petitioners, of course with reference to the Court. But instead of doing so, the respondents proceeded to pass these orders in disregard of the Notification, referred to above. 40. As the respondents have charged the assessee with wilful mis-statement and suppression of material facts and fraud in their return, the question of time in initiation of proceedings does not arise and as proposed by my learned brother, Mulye, J. in his order, the interests of the revenue can well be safeguarded by allowing the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioners to continue, with which I fully agree. As the above order proceeds on admitted position, other rival contentions based on controversial facts are not gone into. With this explanatory note, I concur with the order of my learned brother, Mulye, J. of which I had the advantage of going through.
-
1984 (11) TMI 319 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... re of statute." We have also come across a decision of the Bombay High Court reported as AIR 1954 Bombay 78 (Prem Narayan Amritlal Verma v. Divisional Traffic Manager), wherein a similar view had been taken. The relevant portion is as under - “An appeal is always the creature of statute and the right of appeal is limited by the law which gives that right. An appellate Court cannot exercise wider powers of correcting the lower Court than are strictly conferred upon it by the law which creates the appellate Court.” 10. We respectfully follow these decisions and hold that the preliminary objection raised by the Departmental Representative must prevail. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has attempted to point out some infirmities in the order of the Collector (Appeals). As we cannot hear the appeal, we refrain from going into the validity or otherwise of the order. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal as not maintainable.
-
1984 (11) TMI 318 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ers had the opportunity to satisfy and convince the authorities concerned by leading evidence to the effect that their product, though produced with the raw material of waste, in fact is covered by Item 18 III(i). The petitioners could get their sample analysed by an Expert and could also prove before the authorities concerned that they have been using non-cellulosic waste, the cost thereof being considerably less than that of non-cellulosic fibre and that thus they started manufacturing yarn from the above waste by blending the same with cellulosic fibre by describing the product as “non-cellulosic waste cellulosic blended yarn". 28. Thus, as a result of the aforesaid discussion we are of opinion that this is not a fit case in which the extraordinary powers under the writ jurisdiction deserve to be exercised. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The amount of security after verification be returned to the petitioners.
-
1984 (11) TMI 317 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve re-exported them and saved themselves of this predicament. The view which we have expressed above on the competency of the authorities under the Imports (Control) Order to take action would be more in consonance with justice and fair play for this reason as well than the contrary view taken in the impugned order. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners also sought to challenge the vires of the provisions of the aforementioned clause 8 on the ground that unbridlled and uncanalised powers have been given to suspend the licence for any period. He, however stated that if the objection of the petitioners as to the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 to take action is upheld, he would not press for a decision on the vires of the said clause. We, therefore, do not propose to go into this matter. 13. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order quashed but in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
........
|
