|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 264 Records
-
1986 (1) TMI 304 - CEGAT, MADRAS
confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... in Section 2(p) of the Act. They are indeed primary gold referable to Section 2(r) ibid. 6. The application for reference filed by the applicants under Section 82B was not referred by the Tribunal initially. Since the applicants have now obtained directions from the High Court to refer the following questions, these are now referred to the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 82(b) of the Act. 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in not accepting the expert opinion taken by the Department? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the goods (gold ornaments) are primary gold and not ornaments is correct in law? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in absolutely confiscating the gold without giving option to redeem when the statute provide for redemption? 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in sustaining the personal penalty levied by the adjudicating authority.
-
1986 (1) TMI 303 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold bangles of unusual malleability in unfinished form considered as primary gold by Tribunal after not accepting expert opinion
-
1986 (1) TMI 302 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... tifying the goods to the Proper Officer or of maintaining accounts or of ensuring that they were licitly imported into India. They are, however, required to maintain a booklet showing the articles received for repairs. They are also required to issue receipts in duplicate, the original had to be given to a person who gave it for repairs and duplicate to be maintained. The authorities below totally overlooked the aspect that the appellant was only a repairer and that he was exempted from the provisions of Section 11C, 11D and 11F. Further, there was only a minor discrepancy in the receipt produced by the appellant and the description given in the panchnama. In the circumstances, the confiscation of the cassette recorder was bad in law so also the penalty levied on the appellant. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The confiscation as well as the penalty are set aside. The goods seized from the appellant shall be returned to him. The penalty if paid shall be refunded to him.
-
1986 (1) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... lty and confiscation of goods are concerned, we find from page 122 of the Collector rsquo s order placed in the paper book that the appellants had written a letter dated 6-2-1984 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise seeking exemption to the lsquo man-made fabrics rsquo processed by them. The Collector has further stated that such a letter was received by the Asstt. Collector and apparently no reply was given by the Asstt. Collector to the appellant. Since the appellants had made the authorities aware of their existence and their process and had sought guidance/exemption from them we hold that levy of penalty on them and confiscation of their goods were not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty as well as the order of confiscation. Consequential refund of the amount of fine appropriated from the security deposit made by the appellants (in lieu of confiscation of the goods) should be granted to the appellants. 6. emsp The appeal is decided in the above terms.
-
1986 (1) TMI 294 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Record of appeal - Inspection of records ... ... ... ... ..... ng the tax rather than the tax itself. (Extract taken from Kanga and Palkivala rsquo s lsquo The Law and Practice of Income Tax rsquo - 7th Edition - Vol. I page 84). 11. ensp By filing a paper book and cross paper book both the parties would assist the court in coming to a correct conclusion. In the matters before us both the parties have filed paper books after the transfer of the proceedings to the Tribunal. In this situation it is not open to the appellants to contend that they are entitled to file a paper book but the respondents are not entitled to do so. However, this does not mean that either party is entitled to bring on to the record inadmissible material merely by including it in his paper book. We are inclined to agree that internal correspondence between the Government of India or the Board and the lower authorities should not be brought on to the record of the present proceedings. This aspect could be gone into in detail at a later stage, if it become necessary.
-
1986 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication & Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ted the provisions of the Baggage (Condition of Exemption) Rules, 1975. The condition, according to the Collector (Appeals) which was violated, was that the value of the goods had been depreciated to less than 50 . In his order, the Collector (Appeals) did not state that the goods in question was cleared without payment of duty. If the goods had been cleared on payment of duty, there is no scope to apply the provisions of Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975. Even assuming that the said provisions are attached, it is necessary for the Department to establish the nature of the goods when it was new and the value when it was transferred or sold. There is no evidence that the goods was new or as to its value when it was new. The finding of the Collector (Appeals) is based on a mere assumption. On consideration of all the aspects, I allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and direct that the seized goods shall be released to the appellant.
-
1986 (1) TMI 286 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand for recovery of refund erroneously granted ... ... ... ... ..... rder of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara Dv. II, dated 10-11-83. Thus the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara succeeds and is allowed in full. 7. emsp As regards the cross objection filed by M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Co. the learned Advocate has accepted that it is not a cross objection as such but merely a statement of arguments on behalf of the company. In other words, the learned Advocate has accepted that the cross objection is not legally maintainable. I find that the learned Advocate rsquo s submission is quite correct. Having received relief in full under the order, dated 30-3-85 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), M/s. Sarang Spring Mfg. Ltd. could not have felt any grievance against this order and hence they could not have filed any cross objection against this order when the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara came up before the Tribunal in appeal there-against. Accordingly, I dismiss the cross objection as untenable.
-
1986 (1) TMI 285 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Provisional Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... arlier paid. Therefore, the points contained in the Collector rsquo s application do arise out of the Tribunal rsquo s order and they are important enough for being referred to the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad, for decision. Particularly Point No. (1) is more important as Point No. (2) is a corollary which would follow in terms of Section 11B after the point No. (1) is determined by the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court. Hence, I am satisfied that the request of the Collector is valid and accordingly, the following points of law which arise out of the order of the Tribunal, dated 7-2-1986 are referred to the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court for their valued opinion Points of Law (1) Whether the provisions of Chapter VII-A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 envisage provisional assessment or not and (2) Whether limitation period is to be counted from the date of payment of duty as envisaged under Rule 11 or Section 11B or from the date of assessment, in such a case.
-
1986 (1) TMI 278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Imports - Imprest licence - Export Houses ... ... ... ... ..... . Shri Bulchandani then relied upon Paragraph 383 of the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures, 1980-81 to claim that the petitioners will be liable to the same legal obligations and penalties arising out of the Agent rsquo s action or inaction under law, as he himself would be otherwise. It was urged that the petitioners can be legally held guilty for the illegal acts of his Agent. It is impossible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. A principal can never be guilty for wrongful acts of the Agent which were done without notice to the principal. The petitioners were not responsible or were not even conscious as to what was imported by M/s Mangla Brothers. In these circumstances, it is impossible to sustain the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 and the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought. 7. emsp Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 277 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import replenishment licence ... ... ... ... ..... respondents is entirely unsustainable and the petitioner is entitled to the relief. 5. emsp The petitioner has tendered draft amendment which is taken on record and marked ldquo X rdquo . Amendment granted. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks. The petitioner claims that due to the pendency of the petition in this Court, the period of licence has expired and, therefore, the respondents should be directed to revalidate the licence for a further period of one year from the date of deletion of Condition No. 2 inserted in the licence. 6. emsp Accordingly, rule is made absolute and Respondent No. 2 is directed to delete Condition No. 2 from the licence dated March 26, 1984 and the copy of which annexed as Ex. ldquo A rdquo to the petition within a period of two weeks from today. The respondents are further directed to revalidate the licence for a further period of one year from the date of deletion of Condition No. 2. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioner.
-
1986 (1) TMI 276 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import Policy- Change of Policy takes effect subsequent to amendment and not before ... ... ... ... ..... of the writ. 15. emsp Accordingly, petition partially succeeds and the order dated July 12, 1984, copy of which is annexed as exhibit lsquo G rsquo to the petition, and show cause notice, copy of which is annexed as exhibit 1-9 to the petition, are quashed and set aside. The orders, copies of which are at exhibits K-1 to K-9 are also set aside, and the respondents are directed to dispose of these applications afresh on merits and without taking into account the order of debarment passed on July 12, 1984. The respondents are further directed to dispose of the show cause notices, copies of which are annexed as exhibits 1-1, 1-3 to 1-5 and 1-7 within six weeks from the date of receipt of writ and in accordance with this judgment. The respondents shall also dispose of the application set out at exhibit ldquo M rdquo by ignoring the debarment order, provided any of those application are not yet disposed of. 16. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Generators and modules ... ... ... ... ..... s per item 5 of 85.22 of CCCN, Signal Generators have been specifically included in Chapter 85. He mentions that the function generators are nothing but Signal generators. 6. emsp We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the documents on record and the submissions made before use. The appellant rsquo s case, as we view it, rests essentially on the argument that the Function Generator is a Signal generator. However, on our repeated queries, it has not been shown to our satisfaction with reference to the documents filed that the Function generator is in fact a Signal generator. Therefore, the claim in this regard will remain unsubstantiated. 7. emsp So far as the correct classification of the impugned goods is concerned we are fully convinced with the arguments put forward by the learned Departmental Representative. These have been discussed supra and we do not wish to repeat them here. 7. In view of these findings the appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in open court).
-
1986 (1) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... direct and proximate. They operate as cause-to-effect in the construction of the tower. The tower appears after the bending, cutting and receives its form and existence from the processes. 24. emsp The only products the processes can be incidental or ancillary to are the angles, channels, sections etc. If the bending, cutting are incidental or ancillary to their completion, the Central Excise should have waited for such incidental processes to complete the manufactured product, angles, channels, before charging duty. But we know that the angles etc. were all duty paid when they appeared on this scene. Do the Central Excise propose charging duty on the angles etc., after the ldquo incidental or ancillary rdquo processes are completed at Dodsal rsquo s? If they do, then the only duty they can recover is the duty under Item 26AA, not 68. But since duty under Item 26AA has been paid, the same duty cannot be recovered again a second time on the goods, angles, channels and plates.
-
1986 (1) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Excise production incentive scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ular submission to make. Further asked by the Bench if declaration filed on 12-7-1976 be held as staking claim for the incentive under the notification in view of the declaration supra, the claim for refund could still be said to be time barred and decision would not cover the issue involved in the present appeal, he agreed that computed from 12-7-1976 in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the claim for refund would not be time-barred. 6. emsp The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal on incentive scheme under the same notification refers to the same period i.e. before amendment of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules on 6-8-1977. Following the decision, the rejection of the claim of refund for the period 27-10-1976 to 4-1-1977 rejected by the lower priorities cannot be upheld and would have to be set aside. We set aside this part of the order and modify the order to that extent and grant refund to the appellants for the period aforesaid. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1986 (1) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... the difficult measurement of clearance ldquo by or on behalf of rdquo , ldquo clearance by rdquo are part of the law and tradition of Central Excise ldquo clearance on behalf of rdquo - is unknown and unrecognized. And even if they are done experimentally, the law has no place for them, and consequently ldquo clearances on behalf rdquo will always be illegal clearances. But the story will have to await another time. It is not even claimed by the department that the clearances by the job workers were illegal clearances or that they infracted any Central Excise law, that the true manufacturer, was really Mahavir Metal Industries who kept itself behind the scene, or that the excise duty liability had not been discharged, or that this or that law had been (infracted?). Therefore, the clearances by the job workers cannot be clearances on behalf of Mahavir Metal Industries but must be clearances on their own behalf and cannot be added to the clearances by Mahavir Metal Industries.
-
1986 (1) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... t has not even prayed for any enhancement of penalty imposed on Kanna Industries. Apart from it we find that Marimuthu, proprietor of Kanna Industries, has already suffered a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 112 of the Act and in the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the role played by M/s. Kanna Industries, we do not think that the penalty imposed calls for any upward revision. So Appeal No. C 253/85 against M/s. Kanna Industries is dismissed. 11. emsp In the result appeals No. 304/84 and 305/84 filed by the Bank of Madura are dismissed. Appeal No. 240/85 and 255/85 filed by the Collector of Customs, Madras, against the Bank of Madura are allowed and the fines under Section 125 of the Act imposed on the Bank of Madura are enhanced as indicated above. Appeal No. 254/85 filed by the Collector of Customs, Madras, against respondent Vinod Kumar is also allowed and a penalty as indicated above is imposed on Vinod Kumar under Section 112(a) of the Act.
-
1986 (1) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to the High Court - Gold in excess of account seized from licensed premises of accuseds
-
1986 (1) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
process of manufacture not concealed and guidance sought from authorities ... ... ... ... ..... and confiscation of goods are concerned, we find from page 122 of the Collector rsquo s order placed in the paper book that the appellants had written a letter dated 6-2-1984 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise seeking exemption to the lsquo man-made fabrics rsquo processed by them. The Collector has further stated that such a letter was received by the Assistant Collector and apparently no reply was given by the Assistant Collector to the appellants. Since the appellants had made the authorities aware of their existence and their process and had sought guidance/exemption from them, we hold that levy of penalty on them and confiscation of their goods were not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty as well as the order of confiscation. Consequential refund of the amount of fine appropriated from the security deposit made by the appellants (in lieu of confiscation of the goods) should be granted to the appellants. 6. The appeal is decided in the above terms.
-
1986 (1) TMI 238 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Customs - Shortage ... ... ... ... ..... urvey report and the BPT weighment certificate relates to bags. The appellant has not produced any proof to show that the Customs have accepted the bags and ordered clearance of the goods that were shipped under the invoice No. 114. It is true that certain corrections regarding drums, mark and numbers were allowed to be made in the B/E but then as pointed out by Shri Pal the B/E was passed provisionally. The refund of duty cannot be claimed on the basis of provisional assessment. Unless there is final assessment, no refund is permissible. Shri Deshpande was unable to establish that there was final assessment or when that final assessment took place. On this ground alone, the refund application is liable to be rejected as premature. In view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the survey report and the weighment certificate do or do not relate to the goods specified in the invoice. 8. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1986 (1) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Additional duty ... ... ... ... ..... accordingly, ldquo additional duty rdquo mentioned in S.3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, partakes of the same character as the Customs duty. 3. ensp This being so, once the relevant notification, admittedly, exempts the goods in question from the payment of Customs duty leviable thereon, it is reasonable to construe the exemption to include the additional duty adverted in S.3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well. 4. emsp To the identical effect were our earlier decisions in- (i) Order No. 937/83-B (ii) Order No. 425/82-B in Appeal No. 379/77-B (iii) Order No. 115-B/84 in Appeal No. 154/78-B (iv) Order No. 699/1984-B in Appeal No. 174/78-B (v) Order No. 719/ and 720/84-B in Appeal Nos. 171/78-B and 172/78-B and (vi) Order No. 207-210/85-B in Appeal No. 151/78-B together with a group of other appeals. 5. We see no reason to deffer and, accordingly, we allow the appeal herein, set aside the orders below and direct consequential relief, if any, be afforded to the appellant.
........
|
