|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 222 Records
-
1985 (2) TMI 277 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tes a rule that is not correct. In those conditions, the incorrect rule will not invalidate the officer’s right to exercise that power. 27. Here the officer sought to exercise the power of recovering duty, under Rule 160, and this was the rule he had in mind. All the authorities below had only Rule 160 before them. All had the same reason for the demand proposal and they all operated in the frame of Rule 160. They never regarded the wash oil as having gone into home consumption, and cleared under Rule 157. Rule 160 was correct if the reasons were the right ones for thinking the oil had become dutiable. But those were not the right reasons. Hence the quotation and the proceedings under Rule 160 were both wrong. They are not in accordance with the facts and hence are contrary to the law. Duty on the wash oil was not leviable under Rule 160 and the demands are invalid and liable to be set aside. I set aside the 15 demands and all the proceedings that arose from them.
-
1985 (2) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... with this direction, the recovery of the said balance amount shall stand stayed till the hearing and disposal of the Revision Application which is now the transferred proceeding before the Tribunal. 8. To our mind, it is not an order passed under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It is an order of stay of the recovery of the duty amount which this Bench of the Tribunal has passed exercising its incidental and ancillary power. 9. The appellants have not brought to our notice any new facts which have come into existence after the passing of the stay order entitling them the grant of stay order unconditionally. All the contentions of the appellants were duly considered before passing the Stay Order, C-1/1985. 10. We, therefore, order that the appeal would proceed without insisting on the prior deposit as stipulated under Section 35F but the stay of the recovery of the duty amount would be only subject to the order already passed by us on 4-1-1985.
-
1985 (2) TMI 275 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ment has not placed any material on record to controvert these affidavits in spite of sufficient time having been granted for the purpose. Added to this, in BTN which has considerable persuasive value, we find that there is no mention of cabinet as a part of airconditioners. For the purposes of these appeals, it would, therefore, have to be held that the Department has failed to prove that the article in question in commercial or trade parlance is a cabinet. We hold accordingly. 7. It is, however, made clear that the findings given in these appeals that the article is not proved to be a cabinet is for want of adducing evidence by the Department. This would not preclude the Department from contending for a subsequent period that the article is a cabinet should they be able to substantiate this contention with requisite evidence. With these observations, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside with consequential relief, if any, admissible to the appellants.
-
1985 (2) TMI 274 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... his family is keen on holding on to such old coins though they have been ceased to be in legal tender. Perhaps, hoarding is in the blood of the family. The Appellant was hardly 15 years old at the time of death of his father. A good part of the coins seized shows the year of manufacture as 1925 and 1926. Their seems to be old fashioned, conservative agriculturists family dabbling in money-lending during the life time of the father of the Appellant. Considering the evidence on record as a whole, we hold that a case of conscious possession of gold and gold coins has not been established and they are not actionable under Section 8(1) and/or Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Collector and order release of the gold chips and gold coins with proviso that within one month from the date of release they shall be disposed of by sale to or by conversion into ornaments through a licensed gold dealer. The penalty imposed on the Appellant is also remitted.
-
1985 (2) TMI 273 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ts or finished products for use in the more convenient distribution of other varieties of paper, in terms of Rule 56A (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.” 2. In Judgement No. C.E.S.R.C. 1 of 1984 dated 5-12-84 the Bench of the Karnataka High Court has decided the question in the affirmative and against us. Accordingly, we modify our order No. ED (MAS) 160/83 dated 30-7-83 and restore the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras No. 37/83 (B) dated 19-2-83.
-
1985 (2) TMI 272 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... f duty-paid surface active agents or surface active preparations. In the present case, we have found that Sandogen NH Conc. is a product excisable and dutiable under Item No. 15AA C.E.T. The preparation made out of the duty paid concentrated product would be eligible for the benefit of exemption. 8. The claim of Sandoz that the process of conversion of Sandogen NH Conc. into Sandogen NH Liquid is not “manufacture” from the excise point of view, is inconsistent with and contradictory to its claim for the benefit of duty exemption in terms of Serial No. 4 of Notification No. 101/66. However, we do not consider it necessary to go into this aspect further in view of our finding that, firstly, Sandogen NH Conc. is excisable and dutiable under Item No. 15AA C.E.T. and, secondly, that Sandogen NH Liquid is eligible for duty exemption in terms of Serial No. 4 of Notification No. 101/66. 9. In the result, we set aside the show cause notice and reject the appeal.
-
1985 (2) TMI 271 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... re claim without fixing the base clearance cannot be said to be justified. Similarly, the Appellate Collector should have also decided the point of limitation raised by the assessee. 19. As the order passed by the Appellate Collector is silent on both these points, so we are remanding this case back to the Collector (Appeals) Madras, with a direction that for the purpose of the fixation of the base clearances under Notification No. 198/76, the value of the goods i.e. Phenol Formaldehyde Synthetic Resins manufactured by the respondents since September, 1974 should be taken into account, and if the respondent/assessee is found to be entitled to some rebate in view of the Notification No. 198/76, he should be given the same. He should also decide the point of limitation raised by the respondent/assessee in the circumstances of the case. The Collector (Appeals) shall decide the matter as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
1985 (2) TMI 270 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ed lot and price was somewhat lower than the price of a lot consisting of uniform size and type of goods, they could not be termed as ‘disposal goods’. Though a claim was made before us by the SDR that the prices of goods now under consideration are 40% lower than the new goods, no particular data has been left in to substantiate the same, whereas, on the other hand, the Company had brought in evidence to show that they had made a profit in the transaction. Hence the observation of His Lordship of the Bombay High Court relied upon by the SDR would not be also of much help in the present case. 12. In the circumstances, we consider that it has not been established that the goods under consideration are ‘disposal goods’ whose importation is not permitted under the I.T.C. Policy. Accordingly we discharge the notice issued to M/s. Rajan Trading Company in Appeal No. 203/81 and allow the appeal in No 37/82, with consequential relief to the Company.
-
1985 (2) TMI 269 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s a safe. The words “steel furniture” and “safe” are words of everyday use. It is settled law now that their classification for the purpose of Central Excise duty should be based on their trade understanding. We, therefore, agree with the respondents that their Firesafe Record Cabinet is correctly classifiable as steel furniture under Item 40 of the Tariff. Despite its fire resisting quality and dual control key lock with eight shooting bolts, it still basically remains a filing cabinet. 6. Incidentally, we observe, as mentioned by the respondents and as admitted by the Department, that the comparable cabinet manufactured by M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., a competitor of the respondents, is assessed by the Department as steel furniture under Item 40 only and not as a safe under Item 48. 7. In the result, we confirm the order of the Appellate Collector and discharge the show cause notice issued by the Central Government.
-
1985 (2) TMI 268 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... om that manufacturer. Though T.I. 68, as it then stood, may have only covered goods, not elsewhere specified, manufactured in a factory, that would not require that in construing the applicability of the exemption Notification 179/77 the use of power, in the process connected with the manufacture, should also have been within that factory. 12. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the claim for refund in respect of both appellants had been rightly negatived by the lower authorities. Shri Raghavan Iyer had advanced certain other arguments also relating to the issue of licence, the terms thereof and the totality of the operation of manufacture being taken into consideration with reference to issue of licence etc. But in view of what appears to us to be the clear position as discussed earlier, we do not think it necessary to go into those contentions. 13. In the result, the orders of the lower authorities are confirmed and these appeals are dismissed.
-
1985 (2) TMI 267 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rade goods and not of their own manufacture. 12. In the result, in the case of Appeals listed at Sl. Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7, we set aside the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, restore the orders of the Assistant Collector to the extent that they held ‘Bhagar’ as a dutiable material, and we further order that the demands for duty shall be restricted to the normal time limit of six months and will be under Item 68 for the period before 1-3-1979 and under Item 23-A(4) for the period on and from 1-3-1979. The matter in Appeal No. 685/83-D listed at Sl. No. 8 is remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for a fresh decision in the light of the respondents’ plea that the material involved in that case had not been manufactured by them but had been purchased from others. In the Cross Objection listed at Sl. No. 5, the respondents sought no further relief but merely opposed the Department’s appeal. In view of our orders on the appeals, the Cross Objection is dismissed.
-
1985 (2) TMI 266 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... the term material as referrable to any and everything used in the manufacture of a finished excisable product may well mean grant of such concession to, for example, diesel oil used as fuel or machinery used in the manufacture of items and the like. We also note that the tiles form the floor of the trolley so that the very high temperatures under which the trolley moves doss not affect the insulators loaded on to the trolley. The bars serve to hold up different layers of parts loaded on the trolley. This would suggest that both the tiles and bars are really removable parts of the trolley it elf, assembled in situ. Because of the nature of use, they are made of refractory material. They are thus more akin to the trolley which, as we have observed earlier, cannot be treated as a part for purposes of Rule 56A Considering the material on record as a whole, we find that the orders of the authorities below are maintainable on facts and in law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1985 (2) TMI 265 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ull duty amounting to ₹ 62,523.40 and Rs, 3126.17 from M/s. Modoplast (P) Ltd., whom they have refused to regard as the manufacturer. It the Department says that the duty should be paid on the Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder by M/s. Modoplast Private Limited then Modoplast (P) Ltd., should be treated as the manufacturer Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder for which the duty is demanded and which should be accounted on behalf of such manufacturer for the purpose of Notification No. 80/80-C.E. also. 15. Taking all these into consideration M/s. Modoplast (P) Ltd. should pay full duty if such duty is payable on the 20697 Kgs. Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder and the Department should take these quantities of Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder into account by M/s. Modoplast for the purposes of Notification No. 80/80-C.E. 16. We, therefore, order that the Appellate Collector order shall stand modified to the extent indicated above, but for this, appeal is rejected.
-
1985 (2) TMI 264 - CEGAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... he form of application as set out earlier, leaves no doubt in our mind that the requirement of filing an application in the prescribed form is directory and not mandatory in a case where transfer is sought on grounds intestate, or succession. Accordingly, we agree with the view of the Collector (Appeals) and dismiss the present appeal. 6. In passing we would observe that Rule 2(b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, requires the licensing authority to have regard to the experience of the applicant with regard to the dealing in, or making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing or polishing of ornaments. In her letter of 19-5-82, the respondent had written to say that her two sons would be assisting her in the business. Being devolution by succession, the property of the firm would pass on not only to the wife but also to the sons. The application from the widow may therefore be treated as one on behalf of herself and the two sons and disposed of accordingly.
-
1985 (2) TMI 263 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the date from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded, the date of receipt of the Assistant Collector’s order, namely, 22-8-1978 should have been excluded from the computation. In 1984 ECR 1650 the East Regional Bench had considered this matter and held that the date of receipt of the order appealed against was to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. 6. In the above view of the matter, the Appellate Collector’s finding that the appeal was barred by limitation is not correct since the appeal was received in his office on 22-11-1978 i.e., within the stipulated period of 3 months. As such, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi to consider the appeal on merits, after affording the appellants an opportunity to put-forth their case. This shall be completed within 3 months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1985 (2) TMI 262 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he appellant’s claim under Heading 90.28(i) should be examined by the lower authorities with reference to the documents now produced by the appellants before the Tribunal and copies of the same to be produced before the lower authorities to whom we are remanding the matter. We may state that Shri Rohatgi was strongly opposed to even a remand being ordered, in view of the foregoing and also argued that Heading 90.28(i) was not at all applicable to the goods imported. We may only state that this argument also could be best appreciated by the lower authorities to whom the matter is being remanded. As a result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, for decision on the appellant’s claim under Heading 90.28(i). It is made clear to the appellants that the examination of the claim would be limited only to this heading and not to any other heading. 4. With the observations above, the appeal is allowed by remand.
-
1985 (2) TMI 261 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... atter we hold that the products imported, namely, copper scrap were correctly assessable to basic duty under entry 74.01/02 of the Customs Tariff and additional duty under Item 26A(1b) of the Central Excise Tariff. 14. Coming now to the exemption claimed by the respondent under central excise notifications, we have already held that the respondents cannot derive any benefit from Notification No. 33/81. However, it would appear that the goods imported would get the benefit from exemption from countervailing duty on account of Notification No. 35/81 which exempts waste and scrap of copper intended to be used in the manufacture of chemicals 15. In the result, we agree with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the goods in question are not chargeable to additional duty not on the ground because the goods are not manufactured products but on the ground that they are covered by a specific exemption. 16. Accordingly, the Order-in-Appeal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (2) TMI 260 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... re exempted from the whole of the duty of excise under any other notification shall not be taken into account. The Explanation does not state that such specified goods which are exempted in the current year should have been specified goods in the previous year also. Therefore we feel that what is to be seen is whether particular goods are specified goods in the current year and are qualified for exemption under any other notification and thereafter verify whether these goods (whether specified or not) were also cleared in the previous year and, if so, exclude the value of clearances of these specified goods in computing the aggregate value of clearances under paragraph 2. This is the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) also. As earlier mentioned, there are no decided authorities on this point which could be applied. Hence following the above conclusion, we hold that the order of the Collector (Appeals) was proper. 11. Accordingly we confirm the same and dismiss this appeal.
-
1985 (2) TMI 259 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... without payment of duty. The rule, however, qualifies the export with the words “in like manner” the reference apparently being to the manner contemplated in Rule 12. This very issue came up before the Delhi High Court in 1981 E.L.T. 642 in an analogous case where the Court held that even in respect of export of goods under Rule 13 from bond, duty was payable to the extent required to be paid in respect of export of goods under claim of rebate of duty in terms of Rule 12. No contrary decision has been cited before us. The one decision cited is the Tribunal Order No. 399/1984-C, dated 21-6-1984 in Appeal No. ED(SB)(T)A. No. 343/81-C 1984 (18) E.L.T. 462 filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. However, it is seen from that order that the Delhi High Court decision was not cited before the Bench. 18. Following the Delhi High Court’s decision, we hold that the action of the lower authorities in charging duty was correct and accordingly, we reject the appeals.
-
1985 (2) TMI 258 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ld be used as a medicine or an ingredient in a medicine. 13. We declare that the action of the lower authorities in denying the exemption was not incorrect. However, they should have gone a little further to see if the importer can establish his title to the exemption. This can be done by enquiring or requiring the importer to produce evidence of use of the citric acid or any part of it in such a way that it can be said to have been put to the uses for which citric acid can earn the exemption. We direct that the custom house suitably make enquiries to this end. The importers also should cooperate and help the customs authorities in any enquiries that they institute in order to achieve this objective. Wherever it is established that the consignment of CAM or any part of it had been used in the manner designated by the exemption Notification 104/82-C.E. amended by 197/82-C.E., the exemption shall be extended to the CAM and refund shall be given of the appropriate sums of duty.
........
|
