|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 229 Records
-
1985 (3) TMI 278 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... f duty must be only for a period of six months before the date of the demands and no more. 24. We order accordingly. Duty shall be paid by M/s. Nayek Associates as demanded for the mill board manufactured by them in accordance with the revision made by the Assistant Collector in his order No. 1/Classification/VU/BDN/79 dated 11-4-1979 as communicated by letter C.No. III(10)II/ VU/BDN/77/5714 dated 4-5-1979, subject to the preceding paragraph. 25. A word about the order of the Appellate Collector which is a subject of appeal No. 474 of 1981 of this Tribunal. There is indeed a contradiction in his order to validate the modification of the classification list from 19-5-1979 after saying that such revision should not have been done by the Assistant Collector. But we have dealt with all the issues in these proceedings and our order will take care of them all. All orders of the lower authorities which are contrary to what we have ordered above, we countermand. They have no effect.
-
1985 (3) TMI 277 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on of necessary conditions, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, an inference of service can be drawn only if the registered post is ‘properly addressed’. 15. On the given facts, we do not think that presumption of service of show cause notice, so as to justify recourse to Section 153(b) of the Customs Act, could be raised. It could have been a case for remand for proceeding de novo from the stage of service of show cause notice but that course is not now open; Kashmira Singh having since died. 16. On the peculiar circumstances of this case, the entire proceedings have, therefore, to be quashed. Kashmira Singh had prayed to this effect even in the Revision Petition now being disposed of in appeal. It is, thus, not any new factor which has cropped in during proceedings before us but was the contention right from the beginning. As a result, we accept the appeal and set aside the order of the Board dismissing the appeal, as also quash the adjudication order.
-
1985 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... o whether within this period, Kartik M. Patel was in such a serious condition as not to be capable of taking steps for filing appeal. The three also do not give any idea whether within this long period, Kartik M. Patel’s condition improved at any stage. It is unbelievable that during this long period, Patel was in such a serious condition so as not to have been able to instruct the other partner, employee or counsel for filing the appeal. The applicant claims of delay constituting sufficient cause for condonation of delay must also be rejected for want of necessary particulars about duration of illness and its seriousness during the period of delay in filing the appeal. 13. From the aforesaid discussion, we find that the applicant has failed to make out sufficient cause justifying condonation of delay of 272 days in filing the appeal. We, therefore, reject the application for condonation of delay. As a consequence, the Stay Application and the Appeal are also rejected.
-
1985 (3) TMI 275 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... treatment chemical containing artificial resin is assessed not as a resin under heading 39 but as a water treatment chemical under heading 38. Many dental waxes contain artificial plastic as an ingredient but are not, on that account, assessed under heading 39. Lubricating preparations frequently contain silicone resins and compounds but these are assessed under heading 34. 7. In 1983 E.L.T. 2425 the Tribunal ruled that the silicone emulsion imported had not been shown to be a lubricating preparation the emulsions would not be assessable under Chapter 34. Hence, if they are a lubricating preparation, they must be assessed under Chapter 34. A mould release agent is a lubricating/release preparation-a parting agent giving an action opposite to the action of an adhesive. It prevents something sticking to another such as a base, a die, a mould, a frame etc , etc. In my opinion, the correct heading for this mould release preparation is 34.01/07(2). I order assessment accordingly.
-
1985 (3) TMI 274 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... products are not of the quality that will compare with commercial or standard qualities. But we are not able to see why that should make any difference to their excisability. The only grounds given by M/s. lLAC Limited for resisting excise liability is that the goods were not treated, were not marketable, were not pure enough to be classed as standard goods of the same names. But goods can be of various qualities and purity even among standard goods marketed; many are of sub-standard qualities and wear out after a much shorter use than others of the same description. Can one say that those were not goods of that description and were not excisable? We at least would not say so, and would not accept any statement to that effect. 56. There is neither law nor technical justifications for holding that the two substances were not excisable. We think that the lower authorities were correct in what they did. We can see no reason to interfere and so we reject both these appeals.
-
1985 (3) TMI 273 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... believe that the 115 video cassettes found in petitioner’s business premises had been imported in contravention of the provisions of the Import Control Order issued under the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 and were liable to confiscation. Seizure of the video cassettes effected by the respondents therefore, is without jurisdiction." The facts of the present appeal are similar to the facts of the aforementioned case and there is no reason as to why the appellant should be denied the benefit of the Allahabad High Court judgment. The revenue has not been able to cite any judgment in its favour. Accordingly, I accept the appeal filed by the appellant and order the release of seized 151 cassettes within three months from the date of this order. I also order the cancellation of penalty of ₹ 500/-(Rupees five hundred only) and direct the revenue authority to refund the same within three months from the date of this order. In the result, the appeal is accepted.
-
1985 (3) TMI 272 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ed Advocate has again requested that the transferred matter now being treated as an appeal, may be deemed to have been filed under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I would like to observe that there is full force in the arguments of the learned J.D.R. The appellant had paid the revision application fee at ₹ 125/- by Treasury Receipt No. M-1156, dated 13-11-1979 under Section 131(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The revision application was addressed to the Additional Joint Secretary (Revision Application), Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue), Jeevan Deep Buildings, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Accordingly, I hold that the transferred revision application which is to be disposed of as an appeal, is to be treated as one filed under the Customs Act, 1962. This order is without prejudice on the point of limitation in the filing of the original revision application.
-
1985 (3) TMI 271 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... cess of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. 5. After hearing both the sides, I would like to observe that there is no mistake in the order. This Court does not enjoy any power to review even its own order under sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. Keeping in view the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment as has been held in the case of T.S. Balaram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay reported in AIR 1971 S.C. 2204 that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions, there is no merit in the miscellaneous application and there is no mistake apparent from record. Miscellaneous application is dismissed. Announced in open Court.
-
1985 (3) TMI 270 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... other arguments by M/s. Fertilizer Corporation to the effect that the oxygen was not oxygen of the excisable variety and that its purity stood in the way of its being excisable. If M/s. Fertilizer Corporation wants the exemption we have given it; but only because - it is oxygen. We can see no logic in extending the exemption on oxygen to a gas that is not oxygen. Indeed M/s. Fertilizer Corporation should not have tried to have it all their way. It is not right for them to deny the gas was excisable oxygen and they ask for an exemption meant for the ‘excisable oxygen. Not, let us declare clearly, that we agree the oxygen was not excisable oxygen. The learned Counsels for the department were quite correct when they said an oxygen gas of less than the highest purity would still be oxygen under the central excise. If proof of this was needed, we have it in the factory’s use of the gas. It was used as oxygen. No one can use a substance as oxygen if it was not oxygen.
-
1985 (3) TMI 269 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... within the purview of the notification. And, we have answered the question in the affirmative. For the same reason, we do not think that the King’s Bench decision in the Saccharin case (supra) is not of direct relevance here. The Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in STC (Vol. 32) 322 holding that by the process of galvanisation, iron and steel do not lose their essential character as iron and steel goes to support Shri Ansari’s stand. 16. The two technical authorities relied upon by Shri Ansari, as we have seen, state that precipitated calcium carbonate is coated to improve its flow properties. It is, thus, clear that the coated grade is an improved filler compared to the uncoated grade. It, thus, qualifies on all counts for the benefit of the notification in that it is a mineral, it is used as a filler and it is comprehended within the inclusive definition of “Chalk”. 17. We uphold the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) and reject the appeal.
-
1985 (3) TMI 268 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... If the department happened to allow a greater amount of reduction in duty than what it thinks was warranted, the excess payment has, in law, to be treated as nothing else but erroneous refund of duty. The authority and procedure for recovering back such excess payment by the Department are laid down in Section 11A of the Act. If the Department chose to issue a demand for such recovery under Section 11A, it cannot, in the same breath, say that it is not bound by the time limit laid down in that section. If, on the contrary, the department’s stand is that Section 11A did not apply and the limitation under the common law applied, as held by the Collector, then the Collector himself had no jurisdiction to decide the matter; the only course open to him was to file a civil suit for recovery of the excess payment. Either way, we find no basis to sustain the Collector’s order. 4. In the light of our above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal.
-
1985 (3) TMI 267 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ent under 84.17 was rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is that the same is ruled out in view of specific exclusion of glass item from 84.17 by the BTN explanatory notes (Pages 1163-1207). Now such exclusion is not available in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which is applicable and which we are following. While BTN may have a persuasive force as held in some of the Tribunal decisions, it cannot be engrafted for all purposes into CTA. There being no inclusion to which the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) refers in the CTA, his order on that basis cannot be upheld. 5. From the orders of the lower authorities, it is clear that the goods are, in fact, being used for Research and Development Unit of the appellants. Considering all this appellants claim for assessment under Heading 70.17/18 is well founded. We, therefore, accept the claim, set aside the impugned order and. order assessment accordingly and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1985 (3) TMI 266 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r collected because of the exemptions in force at the time of removal; (d) there could be no levy of duty upon such goods notwithstanding that the Notification No. 226/77 had come into force before cotton fabrics were manufactured using the yarn so cleared, since that would not only imply giving an unintended retrospective effect to the said Notification but is also contrary to the fundamental concept relating to a levy of excise. To contend that it is not a levy on yarn but on the cotton fabric manufactured subsequent to the promulgation and in terms of Notification No. 226/77 is to negate the benefit of the earlier Notification Nos. 132/77 and 135/77 applicable to yarn in question and actually availed of as well and cannot, therefore, commend itself for acceptance. 4. In the premises, the Appeal is allowed. It would appear that the amount was collected in July 1977 and has been with the Department for the last about 8 years. It should be refunded without any further delay.
-
1985 (3) TMI 265 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t for calculations for more reasons than one. But there is not a word in the law that forbids working out the rebate for a shorter time within any of the six-month cycle. If the vegetable products made by using the requisite quantity of the right oil was cleared during a six-month circuit, it must be given the concession. This claim was in respect of vegetable product cleared between 1-1-1978 and 27-1-1978 i.e. during the six-month cycle commencing 1st January, 1978. Notification No. 209/76-C.E. was valid during these 27 days. But we do not know the percentage of indigenous cotton oil used in its manufacture; only the Central Excise assessing officer has these details. We direct the Central Excise assessing authorities to find out the percentage of cotton oil used. If the vegetable product contained the right proportion of the right oil, concession appropriate under Notification No. 209/76-C.E. shall be given to M/s. Madhusudan Vegetable Products Co. Limited, the appellants.
-
1985 (3) TMI 264 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e show cause notice that we have been able to read has nothing about wrapper paper. Since there is no material on the subject we cannot make any judgment on this part of the dispute. We read from the Asst. Collector’s order that there was already a separate demand for payment of duty on wrapper paper used for packing. Let the concerned people pursue the case, and not mix it up with this, M/s. Bengal Paper Mill complain that the Asst. Collector should not have revised the classification list arbitrarily after approving it himself. To be sure the Asst. Collector should not do such a thing arbitrarily. But from what we can see of these proceedings, demand notices were issued for duty thought to have been short-levied. There is nothing illegal or wrongful about them. Or do M/s. Bengal Paper Mill think the Asst. Collector must never modify or change a classification list once he approves it and short-levies should be allowed to continue ? If they do, we disagree completely.
-
1985 (3) TMI 263 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... g other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise. It is on account of this fact that this matter was assigned and heard by Special Bench of the Tribunal created specially to decide matters having relation to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of the goods for purposes of assessment. Various Benches of this Tribunal have taken the unanimous view that such orders being orders relating among other things, to the determination of a question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise, questions of law relating to such orders are not to be referred to the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file an appeal directly to the Supreme Court under the provision of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We, therefore, reject this Reference Application on these preliminary grounds.
-
1985 (3) TMI 262 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the meaning of sub-item 29A(2) were manufactured to attract duty liability under the item. It has also not been suggested or argued that these 22 coolers would attract duty liability under some other item of the tariff. In taking this view, we are fortified by another decision of the Bench in Life Insurance Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (Order No. 45/85-B, dated 25-1-1985) where the Bench in respect of coolers installed by the LIC at its office at Raipur by obtaining exhaust fans and payment of installation charges to a company on job work basis held that no duty liability against the LIC under Item 29A(2). We, therefore, set aside the demand of duty in respect of these 22 coolers. 6. As for penalty of ₹ 250 admittedly with respect to other coolers, the appellant carried on manufacturing activity. The penalty is even otherwise modest and calls for no interference. It is upheld. The appeal is thus partly allowed and disposed of in terms above said.
-
1985 (3) TMI 261 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, that charges to duty the goods enumerated at the rates specified in the First Schedule to the Act. 9. Where the duty is specified ad valorem, the assessable value is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. That Section provides that the value of packing is to be added to the value of the goods to be assessed to duty, where they “are delivered in a packed condition at the time of temoval”. The exception is in the case of durable and returnable packing. 10. If, therefore, in the determination of the assessable value of the goods, in question, the value of the packing, assessed to duty already, is also to be included, it is not as if duty is being levied all over again on the packing. Duty is being levied only on the goods in question at the rates applicable thereto. The assessable value thereof, however, includes the value of the duty paid packing in terms of Section 4(d) (i) of the Act.
-
1985 (3) TMI 260 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... blic interest involved and so long time may be required for inquiry and consideration before taking a final decision in the matter, but it must, at the same time be emphasised that the Government officers charged with the double duty of taking decisions and instituting the proceedings in the courts must not carry the impression that they can bank on the indulgence of courts even if they take their own time in processing the papers or making up their mind. The court would not certainly put up with any laches on the part of the Governmsnt officials in the matter of court proceedings just as it would not do in the case of a private litigant. 6. As the delay has not been properly explained and justified, so we don’t find any ground in condoning this delay and, therefore, reject the application filed for condonation of delay. 7. As application for condonation of delay has been rejected, so the main appeal is dismissed as barred by time under Section 129A of the Customs Act.
-
1985 (3) TMI 259 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... in the case of M/s. Rakesh Press, New Delhi, sets out in detail approach to be followed with regard to valuation of machinery goods. The order also brings out what would normally constitute acceptable evidence to prove a charge of under valuation. Applying the ratio of our order in the case of M/s. Rakesh Press and other judgments of the Tribunal cited therein, we are afraid that the charge of under-valuation levelled against the appellants in the present case does not stand sustainable. There is considerable force in the argument advanced by Shri Sogani that the basis of valuation adopted by the learned Collector is ad-hoc, if not totally arbitrary in character. In the result we accept the plea of Shri Sogani in this behalf and reject the finding of the learned Collector with regard to the charge of under-valuation adjudged against the appellants. 13. In the result appeal succeeds on both counts. Consequent relief flowing from this order should be allowed to the appellants.
........
|
