|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 181 Records
-
1988 (10) TMI 233 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... re the learned judges have observed the fact of availability of such watch movement in the free market has not been brought to bear on the mind of the detaining authority, for arriving at a subjective satisfaction. It was observed by the learned judges in that case that the fact that the watch movements were not notified either under Chapter IV-A or under Section 123 of the Customs Act were not borne in the mind of the detaining authority. In the present case of the appellants there is no allegation of invocation of Section 123 or failure to comply with provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act. The Addl. Collector has not based his finding either for failure to discharge the burden under Section 123 or for failure to comply with provisions of Chapter IVA of the Customs Act. We, therefore, are of the view that the citation made are of no significance for considering the facts in the present appeal. We, therefore, see no merit in the appeal and accordingly reject the same.
-
1988 (10) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Non-filing of import manifest ... ... ... ... ..... e established. Fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs reduced to Rs. 1000/-. Keeping in view the earlier judgments of the Tribunal cited above and the fact that the goods are under detention for the last three years, the appellant must have incurred a demurrage of about Rs. 5,46,000/-, we feel that the ends of justice require that personal penalties and fine in lieu of confiscation should be reduced. Accordingly, in the case of M/s. Sriyansh Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd., we reduce the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 from Rs. 4 lakhs to rupees one lakh and the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 87,500/- and in the case of M/s. KJiazan Industries Pvt. Ltd., we reduce the penalty from Rs. 3,50,000/- Rs. 87,500/- and fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 1,10,000/- to Rs. 27.500/-. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. Except for this modification in the order, the appeals are otherwise rejected.
-
1988 (10) TMI 231 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Absolute confiscation and redemption ... ... ... ... ..... n in the facts of the present case. In the present case huge quantity of primary gold was found in the possession of one Balasundaram and the appellant being a co-traveller claimed ownership thereof immediately on seizure and admittedly there was no entry in the GS 13 of the certified goldsmith. The primary gold of very high purity namely 24 carat was taken by the appellant through Balasundaram for the purpose of sale and the statement of the appellant as well as Balasundaram clearly establish this fact. This Tribunal has not in any case given the option of redemption to any person who was found in possession of primary gold of 24 carat purity in contravention of law. We, therefore, uphold the order of absolute confiscation of the gold under the impugned order. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand). Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 226 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Short-landing - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... argo. rdquo But his finding was that this shortage did not take place at the port of shipment. He, therefore, rejected the appellant rsquo s contention. 6. If once the Collector (Appeals) was satisfied that there was a shortage before actual clearance of the goods, he should have granted the relief prayed for because the End Use Certificate could be in respect of the quantity cleared and not in respect of the quantity not cleared. 7. Having regard to the documentary evidence referred to by us, the genuineness of which are not disputed by the Department, we are of the view that the Assistant Collector was sot justified in confirming the demand for non-production of the End Use Certificate which could not produced since the quantity in respect of which certificate was not produced was not at all cleared by the appellants. 8. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the authorities below and direct that the appellants be granted the consequential relief.
-
1988 (10) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rebate of duty on goods exported under Bond ... ... ... ... ..... cking without which a manufactured product cannot be delivered whether, for reasons of transport or otherwise, should be treated as a process incidental or ancillary to the completion, of that product. The Bench further held ldquo that when the pack sheets are stitched up around the contents, the sheets themselves assume the shape of a bag like contraption. Such a bag would be an item of jute manufacture in its own right and consequently, the pack sheets and the twin used in preparing the bag would have to be treated as having been used in the manufacture of that bag. In that case, the bag itself treated as having exported along with the contents under bond. In this view of the matter also therefore would be no duty liability on the jute pack sheets rdquo . 17. In our opinion the above decision of the Tribunal applies in all fours to the facts of the present appeal. 18. Following the above decision we hold that there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly we reject the same.
-
1988 (10) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI`
... ...
... ... ..... the aid of power, though carried out outside the factory, the requirement of the notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 was not fulfilled so as to entitle the appellants therein to exemption from duty. 5. ensp In the present case before us, furniture falls under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Sawing of timber which is used in the manufacture of furniture, is a part of the process of manufacture of furniture. Since the timber was sawn with the aid of power by the respondents herein and the said timber was used in the manufacture of furniture, following the Supreme Court judgment, it cannot be said that the furniture was manufactured without the aid of power. As a result, the respondents are not entitled to the exemption of the Central Excise duty on furniture under notification referred to above. Duty was payable on the furniture under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1988 (10) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... r letter dated 9-12-1982, to the Superintendent, referred to a warning that ldquo unless or until illegal gratification was not (sic) paid to sample examiners, the samples would be failed (sic) rdquo . The allegation is grave and the respondents should have been called upon by the department to substantiate it. Be that as it may, we cannot act on the premise that the Chief Chemist rsquo s test result should be ignored because of the unsubstantiated expression of lack of faith in the Chief Chemist rsquo s test. 5. The Collector (Appeals) rsquo s finding that the Asstt. Collr. had acted in breach of the principles of natural justice is correct though not for the reason set out by him. 6. In the circumstances, while we uphold the Collector (Appeals) rsquo s order of remand to the Assistant Collector, we modify it to the extent that the Assistant Collector shall proceed on the basis of the two test reports on record but after giving due opportunity to the respondents to be heard.
-
1988 (10) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n of manufacture rubberised cotton fabrics fall within the scope of T.I. 19(l)(b) of CET. 9. We observe that neither the Collector in the grounds of appeal nor the learned JDR in his pleas before us has shown us as to how where there is predominance of robber content to the extent of 60 in the fabric, the fabric can fall under T.I.19(l)(b) in terms of the criteria set out in the definition of cotton fabrics given under Tariff heading 19. In view of this, and following judgment of the Bombay High Court supra, we hold that there are no merits in the appeal and dismiss the same. 10. We observe that the Collector has filed a supplementary appeal which is registered under No. A15 (82)/88D in the main appeal. Inasmuch as the Collector (Appeals) disposed of two orders of lower authority by a single order, the delay in filing the same, as per the procedure and practice of the Tribunal, is condoned. This appeal is also dismissed for the reasons set out in our order on the main appeal.
-
1988 (10) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... him that the finished product, namely fertiliser having been notified under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, and as per the Trade Notice referred to by him, the respondents can avail of 56-A procedure, when the finished product is notified under Rule 56-A and hence the respondents appear to be eligible for availing of proforma credit even in terms of Notification No. 178/77. 4. Shri Arya referred to the order-in-original and contended that even for availing proforma credit under Rule 56-A set off register is required to be maintained. We are unable to appreciate this position. Once it is conceded that the respondents are eligible to avail of procedure prescribed under Rule 56-A, which is a self-contained Rule setting out its own procedure for availment of credit, insistence on maintenance of any other account and denial of credit on that ground would not be legally in order. We, therefore, do not see any merit in the Department rsquo s appeal and hence reject the same.
-
1988 (10) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Locus standi to file ... ... ... ... ..... ed for the sake of arguments that whenever any person informs the authorities concerned claiming the ownership of the goods in question a show cause notice must be issued to him irrespective of other considerations which are to be formed on the basis of the enquiries made and evidence collected during the investigation would make provisions of Sec. 124 of the Customs Act a mockery rdquo . Against this decision a Special Leave Petition No. 4441 of 1987 was filed before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 12-9-88 by a speaking order. In this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a show cause notice should have been issued to the appellant before confiscating the contraband gold ornaments or he is a person aggrieved by the impugned order cannot be accepted. 7. In view of the above the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help him. 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
1988 (10) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Acquisition, possession and disposal of gold ... ... ... ... ..... tion 75 of the Act. In the instant case whether it is the case of illicit acquisition, possession, control of primary gold or of article the facts constituting the breach are the same under sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 8 and the breach of both the said sub-sections is punishable under Section 75 of the Gold (Control) Act with the same amount of penalty. 15. Thus, even assuming with the learned counsel for the appellant that sub-section (2) of Section 8 was not quoted in the show cause notice we hold that the appellant was guilty of breach of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Gold (Control) Act. 16. Alternatively it was also argued that the absolute confiscation and the amount of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh is harsh. We have considered the circumstances and the nature of the breach and find that in the facts and circumstances of the case the absolute confiscation and penalty amount cannot be termed as excessive or harsh. 17. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Cross-examination ... ... ... ... ..... from the date of receipt of this order. 11. As the case relating to appeal No. C/2354/88-NRB is being remanded to the Additional Collector for re-adjudication, it is not necessary to give findings on the other points raised by the appellant No. 1 and his counsel during the hearing. 12. So far as appeal No. C/2355/88-NRB filed by the appellant No. 2 is concerned, this appeal has challenged the penalty of Rs.1,000/- imposed on him. The learned consultant has correctly argued and the learned SDR has fairly conceded that the penalty could not be imposed under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 119 says that any goods used in concealing the smuggled goods are also liable to confiscation. In the circumstances, the order of penalty imposed on the appellant No. 2 is set aside and the appeal filed by him is allowed. 13. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal No. C/2354/88-NRB is allowed by remand and appeal No. C/2355/88-NRB is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1988 (10) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... uirement by the Gold Control Officer is covered under Section 64. Provisions of that section, therefore, are apparently contravened by the appellants inasmuch as they failed to produce the relevant records as required by the Gold Control Officers on 17-9-82. As we have already held that the manner of recovery of records, on the basis of plea of loss of records raises serious doubts about this plea. The only charge, therefore, that can be upheld against the appellants is contravention of Section 64 of the Gold Control Act. Penalty for this is provided under Section 75 of the Gold Control Act and the maximum penalty therefor is Rs. 1,000/-. In the circumstances, therefore, we uphold a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- against the appellants under Section 75 of the Gold Control Act. 10. In short, confiscation of the gold ornaments is set aside and consequently the redemption fine is set aside. Penalty is reduced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1000/- as held above. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (10) TMI 207 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... tatement made by Shri Gopal Mehta not only during the course of investigation but also during the personal hearing, it is hazardous to rely on his uncorroborated statement particularly having regard to his own admission that he was indulging in smuggling gold earlier also. In the absence of any other corroborative evidence, the Collector, in our opinion, was not justified in imposing penalty on the appellant even under the Customs Act. 21. On consideration of all the aspects, we hold that the Collector rsquo s order so far as it relates to the appellant was wholly unjustified. We, therefore, set aside the penalty on the appellant under the Customs Act also. 22. In the result, we allow both the appeals and set aside the penalties imposed under both the Acts. It appears the appellant had deposited Rs. 5,000/- under the Customs Act and Rs. 5,000/- under the Gold Control Act. The penalties so paid shall be refunded to the appellant, after due verification as to the payments made.
-
1988 (10) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... relying on ISI specifications. There was authority of the Indian Standards Institute rsquo s publication rdquo Glossary of Terms used in Paper Trade and Industry - IS 4661. In view of the facts as appeared in paragraph 14 of the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in Kores (India) Ltd., Thane v. Collector of Central Excise, Thane (supra), where the basis of the classifications of ISI in its specifications is explained, we are of the opinion that the carbon paper fell under Item 17(2) as it stood at the relevant period germane for this appeal, before 1982, and not in residuary Item No. 68 of C.E.T. 5. Therefore, following the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment referred to above, we hold that laminating duty paid kraft paper would amount to lsquo manufacture rsquo and such laminated duty paid kraft paper would be liable to Central Excise duty levy again under Tariff Item 17(2) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow this appeal.
-
1988 (10) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... relying on ISI specifications. There was authority of the Indian Standards Institute rsquo s publication rdquo Glossary of Terms used in Paper Trade and Industry - IS 4661. In view of the facts as appeared in paragraph 14 of the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in Kores (India) Ltd., Thane v. Collector of Central Excise, Thane (supra), where the basis of the classifications of ISI in its specifications is explained, we are of the opinion that the carbon paper fell under Item 17(2) as it stood at the relevant period germane for this appeal, before 1982, and not in residuary Item No. 68 of C.E.T. 5. Therefore, following the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment referred to above, we hold that laminating duty paid kraft paper would amount to lsquo manufacture rsquo and such laminated duty paid kraft paper would be liable to Central Excise duty levy again under Tariff Item 17(2) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow this appeal.
-
1988 (10) TMI 203 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Short-landing and loss of goods in transit after imports ... ... ... ... ..... mporter only, is well justified and we see no reason to interfere with this finding. Notwithstanding the above position, it is observed that before the transport from Bombay to Delhi, a shortage of 216 kgs. TDI 80 and 590 kgs. of Polyether Polyol is reported to have been noticed in the survey conducted at Bombay in the presence of the Customs. The bond executed for transport cannot be said to have covered this quantity found short even before the transport. In fairness, the remission of duty on this quantity viz. 216 kgs. of TDI 80 and 590 kgs. of Polyether Polyol found short at Bombay itself before transport should be considered, while demanding duty in respect of the transit loss noticed. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by direction to the effect that the Assistant Collector may revise the demand by suitably reducing the duty involved on the aforesaid shortages noticed at Bombay before transporting. But for the aforesaid modification the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1988 (10) TMI 202 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Short-landing and loss of goods in transit after imports ... ... ... ... ..... mporter only, is well justified and we see no reason to interfere with this finding. Notwithstanding the above position, it is observed that before the transport from Bombay to Delhi, a shortage of 216 kgs. TDI 80 and 590 kgs. of Polyether Polyol is reported to have been noticed in the survey conducted at Bombay in the presence of the Customs. The bond executed for transport cannot be said to have covered this quantity found short even before the transport. In fairness, the remission of duty on this quantity viz. 216 kgs. of TDI 80 and 590 kgs. of Polyether Polyol found short at Bombay itself before transport should be considered, while demanding duty in respect of the transit loss noticed. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by direction to the effect that the Assistant Collector may revise the demand by suitably reducing the duty involved on the aforesaid shortages noticed at Bombay before transporting. But for the aforesaid modification the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1988 (10) TMI 201 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Short-landing and loss of goods in transit after imports ... ... ... ... ..... mporter only, is well justified and we see no reason to interfere with this finding. Notwithstanding the above position, it is observed that before the transport from Bombay to Delhi, a shortage of 216 kgs. TDI 80 and 590 kgs. of Polyether Polyol is reported to have been noticed in the survey conducted at Bombay in the presence of the Customs. The bond executed for transport cannot be said to have covered this quantity found short even before the transport. In fairness, the remission of duty on this quantity viz. 216 kgs. of TDI 80 and 590 kgs. of Polyether Polyol found short at Bombay itself before transport should be considered, while demanding duty in respect of the transit loss noticed. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by direction to the effect that the Assistant Collector may revise the demand by suitably reducing the duty involved on the aforesaid shortages noticed at Bombay before transporting. But for the aforesaid modification the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1988 (10) TMI 200 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Application for grant of a licence to a gold dealer already holding a licence at a different place
........
|
