|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 229 Records
-
1985 (3) TMI 298 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e placed before us in aid of rival submissions. In the view we have taken as indicated hereinbefore, it is not necessary to refer to these. (1) 1967 1 S.C.R. 128. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the learned judges of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court were right. The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are told that except two, all other appellants have already been absorbed. It has also to be borne in mind that in considering whether lecturers are eligible or not those who are functioning since prior to 25.6.1975 until 12.6.1978, functional gaps as we have indicated hereinbefore should be ignored and if possible some arrangements be made where after appropriate screening or selection as the case may be, those who have been functioning as temporary teachers for long period might be absorbed including the appellants, subject to the rules of the University.
-
1985 (3) TMI 297 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... e of ambiguity, one is permitted to look at the meaning given to the disputed term in cognate legislation. As pointed out by the respondent in their memorandum of cross objection, the Factories Act distinguishes between a ‘lay-off’ and a ‘closure’. In the circumstances of the present case, we find that there was both receipt of raw materials under D.3 intimation to the department, as well as clearances during that period. It is not in dispute that only the labour force was laid off but the factory otherwise functioned. 6. In the light of the above, we hold that the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) is maintainable in law and is based on facts. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the Collector. 7. As the matter relates to a claim for the year ended 1982-83 and much water has flown under the bridge since then, we also direct that the order of the Collector (Appeals) be given effect within three months from the date of this order.
-
1985 (3) TMI 296 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he Respondent cannot claim a vested right in such a mistake (1978 Cr LJ 1184-Gauhati); (v) nor can the Rules of the Tribunal come in the way of such restitution. The dismissal of the Appeal was not conclusive or immutable where restitution becomes inevitably necessary and the order of the dismissal, inconsequence, has to be recalled and set aside. It is not as if the Tribunal becomes denuded of any such power where such restitution is imperative ; (n) as discussed by us. in the case in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 310 Entremonde Poly waters v. Collector of Central Excise , restitution in integrum on account of an erroneous act of the Tribunal by which prejudice is caused to a litigant is different from a Review. In directing such restitution, we are not exercising any powers of Review. 7. Accordingly, after the most anxious deliberation of this matter, we recall the order of dismissal of the Appeal, restore it to its original number to be proceeded with at the stage it was on 15-2-1984.
-
1985 (3) TMI 295 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ch had suffered duty under Item No. 68 CET were used for packing of Surf and Soap. The appellants claimed relief of the duty paid on the printed cartons in terms of Notification No. 201/79, the period of the dispute being prior to the amendment of 1982. The Tribunal took the view that printed cartons could not be considered either as raw material or component part in the manufacture of surf/soap. But then, it must be noted that the Central Excise Tariff Items for soap (Item 15) and Surf (Item 15AA) did not, unlike item 1B, require that soap and surf should, to fall within the scope of the respective tariff items, be put up in unit containers. 24. I agree with my learned Brothers that the several decisions set out in their Order and cited before us are not relevant for determination of the present dispute. 25. In the light of the views I have set out above, I would propose an order dismissing the appeal but, then, the appeal succeeds in view of the majority opinion.
-
1985 (3) TMI 294 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... pellant. The Senior Departmental Representative is not able to satisfy us as to the dispatch of such notice or its return undelivered, if one was sent by registered post. Our attention was drawn to certain notations appearing on the copies of the show cause notice, according to which they were all put on the notice board of the Collector’s office. Assistant Collector’s office and the Superintendent’s office. This seems to have been done simultaneously with the issue of the notices. We do not accept the plea of the Senior Departmental Representative that such exhibition on the notice board simultaneously with the dispatch of notices to the appellant is service as contemplated under Section 113 of the Act. Accordingly, we find that there has been denial of natural justice. The order of the Collector is set aside in so far as it relates to the appellant herein, with liberty to the Collector to readjudicate, if so desired, after putting the appellant on notice.
-
1985 (3) TMI 293 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... he appellants are liable to a penalty under Section 74 of the Act. 5. We also take note that the primary gold weighing only 30.700 gms. is the resultant of the melting down of the mangalsutra of the wife of one of the partners. However, possession of primary gold is a violation of Section 8(1) of the Act. We think that the interests of justice will be met if we, (a) order the release of the confiscated gold ornaments weighing 1151.000 gms; (b) order the release of the primary gold weighing 30.700 gms. on payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs, 1,200/- (Rs, one thousand and two hundred only); and (c) reduce the personal penalty imposed on the appellants to ₹ 2,500/-each (Rs. two thousand and five hundred only.). Note. - On release of the primary gold wg. 30.700 gms. the same will be either converted into ornaments or sold to an authorised gold dealer in accordance with law, within one month from the date of release of the primary gold. Ordered accordingly.
-
1985 (3) TMI 292 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... under Sec. 112 (b). 16. Turning to the Staff Captain, II Engineer and the Bosun of the vessel, we note that after the seizure of the currency they aided the Master and the Chief Purser in taking it away from Customs officers and distributing the same to the so called owners of the currency who were passengers on board the vessel. As having been concerned in any other manner in dealing with the currency which was obviously liable for confiscation, and which as officers and men on board the vessel, they are liable to action.. In the circumstances of the case such knowledge could be inferred. In this view of the matter the imposition of penalty on each of these persons is maintainable in law. Considering the role of each person concerned and the quantum of currency involved we do not find that the penalties imposed on each of the person namely, the Master, Chief Purser, Staff Captain, II Engineer and the Bosun, is excessive. In the result each of the appeals is dismissed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 291 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... se to place any reliance on the mahazar, it would be a different matter. The Bench ruling relied upon by the learned SDR does not deal with .a situation like the one in the present case, and therefore, the broad observations of the Calcutta High Court may not be relevant to the facts of the present case. The fundamental principle of affording a party an opportunity to cross-examine in a situation where reliance is placed against a person on certain document has been succinctly explained in the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent and referred to supra. Therefore, taking into consideration the background of this case, the nature of the charge against the respondent, the importance of the mahazar for bringing home such a charge, I feel that interests of justice require that the respondent should be afforded an opportunity of cross-examination. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to uphold the impugned order appealed against and dismiss the appeal.
-
1985 (3) TMI 290 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ersion relating to the purchase of the ‘nahanam’ under seizure, would all cumulatively prove and establish that the goods under seizure have been smuggled into India from Sri Lanka and as such are liable for confiscation. Indeed in the ruling reported in AIR 1965 Calcutta 248 referred to supra, it is held that “the onus might be shifted when customs authorities would give some prima facie evidence of illicit importation of the watches”. I, therefore, find that the impugned order appealed against is clearly sustainable in law and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. But taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that interests of justice would be met if the redemption fine is reduced from ₹ 7,500/- to ₹ 5.000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and consequently, the penalty also from ₹ 2,000/- to ₹ 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only). Except for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 289 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... tore the order of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise dated 12-5-1983 with the following modifications (a) The order of confiscation of the goods under the following serial numbers referred to in para 1 of the Deputy Collector’s order, under Rule 226, Rule 173Q(1) (b) read with Rule 226, and under Rule 173Q (1) (b) read with Rules 173G (4) and 53 is upheld Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 (i), 9 and 13. However an option is given to the respondents to redeem the same on payment of a fine of ₹ 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only); (b) the order in so far it relates to confiscation of goods, other than those referred to in (a) above is set aside, giving the benefit of doubt regarding completion of packing to the respondents; and (c) regarding the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q, to the extent that it relates to Rule 173Q (b), it is confirmed; the penalty imposed on the respondents is reduced from ₹ 25,000/- to ₹ 9,000/-(Rupees nine thousand only).
-
1985 (3) TMI 288 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the identical goods or of any truncations of sale and import or even offer for sale at lower prices. The Invoices dated 4-11-1977 from M/s. Harwin Exports and 28-11-1977 from M/s. Maphil Traders Ltd. and the special offer for camshaft bush C 3023 S dated 15-11-1977 relied upon for the Appellant as showing a decline in prices from those quoted in the aforesaid letter dated 7-2-1977, do not reflect the prices of goods identical with those actually imported. The mere fact that the prices for other parts suffer a decline does not necessarily mean and imply that the prices quoted for identical goods also declined by the time of actual import. Nor does the aforesaid offer dated 7-2-1977 lose its probative value just because the prices quoted could have been reduced by negotiation since in terms of the aforesaid Valuation Rule, an offer by itself is sufficient to be the basis of the determination of the assessable value. 21. In the result, I agree that the Appeal be dismissed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 287 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... show what was the understanding of persons dealing in or concerned with such goods, with reference to the particular goods under dispute. We would also like to stress that, while our observations in paras 18 to 20 would have general applicability, our conclusions on the particular goods under dispute are based solely on the evidence available on the record, and should be taken as applicable to the particular facts of this case. With these qualifications, we hold that the evidence before the Collector was insufficient to sustain the finding that the goods were furnishing fabrics, and therefore the classification, demands for duty and personal penalties deserved to be set aside. 42. Our reasoning would equally apply to the Order-in-Appeal of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which is a brief order relying on the reasoning contained in the Collector’s order. 43. In the result, we allow all these 10 appeals and direct that consequential relief be granted.
-
1985 (3) TMI 286 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... r, 1980, the respondent had merely informed the Superintendent of the cancellation of the Gate Passes. In the second letter of the same day, addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kovvur, he had asked for refund of the duty paid. The Superintendent advised the party to file the claim for refund with the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Eluru Division, and this letter was received by the Assistant Collector six months after the date of credit in the PL Account. Hence, it is barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Act. 6. With the non-availability of provisions of Rule 173-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and as has been rightly pointed out by the Assistant Collector that a proper claim for refund has been received by him after the time limit prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act, it is barred by limitation. 7. In the result, the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and that of the Assistant Collector rejecting the claim restored.
-
1985 (3) TMI 285 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... r. That part of the order is thus upheld. 12. Before parting with the case, we would like to observe that in the latter class of goods referred to in paragraph 11, they were in a warehouse under the double lock of the appellant as well as of the bond officer of the Department; access to the warehouse at all times has to be in the presence of both and with the consent of an officer of the Customs. The theory that the goods could have been removed for any ulterior purpose other than clearance for shipment would thus be far fetched. One could accept the plea of the appellant that the goods were in fact removed from the warehouse and fitted on to fishing trawler and hence have not in fact been consumed within the country. Though therefore, in strict law, we are upholding the order of the Additional Collector in respect of the goods, we feel that if the matter is raised properly with the Government of India, it may like to consider the grant of suitable relief with sympathy.
-
1985 (3) TMI 284 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... alify for the benefits of Notification No. 201/79. As correctly pointed out by the SDR, when ferric alum is used only for water purification, it is not entitled to the benefits of Notification. In the present case, sodium aluminate and sulphate of alumina are used for removal of suspended impurities and change the pH factor to neutral. In other words, the presence of some salt or chemicals in the water makes it either acidic or alkaline and the chemical impurities are removed to make the water exactly neutral (pH 7). Quite apart from this, we are informed that in bleaching of fabrics, a certain amount of alkalinity is desirable; in fact, a pH value of about 11 is created in such situations by the addition of bleaching powder. Thus, we find that the two chemicals which are the subject-matter of appeal before me are merely used for water purification and are not directly used or usable in the process of manufacture of yarn/fabrics. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 283 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... t case. It should not be difficult for one to set up ownership in others after seizure and in the instant case, such a plea coming as it does from a licensed dealer after a long lapse of time without any satisfactory acceptable convincing explanation for such a belated explanation, coupled with the improbable nature of the explanation itself, would render it unacceptable. 13. In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order appealed against is clearly maintainable in law and the appeal is devoid of merits. But, taking into Consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in mind the past clean record of the appellant, and also having regard to the purity of the gold as well as the gold ornaments under seizure, I reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to ₹ 35.000/- (Rupees thirty-five thousand only) and the penalty to ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Except for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ct of this item cannot be upheld and to that extent the order of the Collector would have to be modified. 9. As to imposition of penalty we notice that the appellants had placed all the papers before the lower authorities. The lower authorities after verifying all these papers granted concession to the appellants. In the circumstances, it would not be proper to hold that the appellants are guilty of mis-declaration. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty against the appellants is not justified. 10. As a result, appellants are held eligible to grant of concession under Notification No. 114-Cus., dated 19-6-80 in respect of Automatic Casting Machine and to that extent the order of the Collector of Customs is set aside. With respect to other items, it is upheld. Penalty of ₹ 5,000/-imposed against the appellants is set aside. The appeal is thus partly allowed on the terms set out above with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1985 (3) TMI 281 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... tute bars the exercise of judicial discretion either in awarding punishment or in releasing an offender on probation in lieu of sentencing him forthwith. The words of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act are wide and would evidently include offences under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Rules." Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is an illiterate goldsmith in a village, the gravity of contravention of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, do not justify the imposition of such a heavy penalty which is much beyond the means of the appellant. I accordingly order to reduce the penalty from ₹ 2,00,000/- to ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only). In the result, the appellant is entitled to reduction of ₹ 1,70,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy thousand only). I also reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation from ₹ 35.000/- to ₹ 25,000/-(Rupees twenty-five thousand only). Except for this modification, the appeal is rejected.
-
1985 (3) TMI 280 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... should not have been for reasons which he would have or should have taken. What would be such necessary steps will again depend upon the circumstances of a particular case vide State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality (1972) 2 SCR 874 AIR 1972 S.C. 749 . Discretion is conferred on the Court before which an application for condoning delay is made and if the Court after keeping in view relevant principles exercises its discretion granting relief unless it is shown to be manifestly unjust or perverse, this Court would be loathe to interfere with it." (j) as already stated, the Applicant had not acted negligently, or was guilty of inaction or want of bona fides. Nor was it as if there was no conflict in views as to the number of Appeals required to be filed. 5. Applying, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions, we hereby, condone the delay in filing the Supplementary Appeals. 6. All the Appeals herein may now be fixed for hearing in July, 1985.
-
1985 (3) TMI 279 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he Gold (Control) Act is also to be confirmed. But so far as the penalties imposed on Smt. Sheela Sumbaly are concerned, we observe that she is not a person alleged, or even suspected, to be regularly dealing in smuggled gold and indulging in similar activities. She is an old lady, obviously belonging to a respectable family. While the offence itself has been established, we are of the opinion that the circumstances mentioned above warrant a lenient view in respect of penalties. We are satisfied that the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act imposed on her may be reduced to ₹ 10,000/- and the penalty under the Gold (Control) Act be reduced to ₹ 2,500/-. 16. Accordingly, Appeal Nos. C-8/82-NRB and GC-158/83-NRB preferred by Smt. Neena Raina are allowed and the penalty imposed on her is set aside. Appeal Nos. C-6/82-NRB and GC-159/83-NRB are dismissed except to the limited extent of reducing the penalties on Smt. Sheela Sumbaly to the extent indicated above.
........
|
