|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 187 Records
-
1988 (6) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... by Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Automotive Ancillary Services 1987 (32) E.L.T. 735 (Trib.) reiterates the grounds of appeal. 3. Learned Advocate, Shri Lakshmikumaran submits that besides the above order of the Tribunal, there is another order No. 279/88-D dated 11-4-1988 of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s Brakes India Ltd., against the department in so far as lsquo stop-light switches rsquo are concerned. 4. Having heard both sides and relying on the earlier orders of the Tribunal mentioned supra, we dismiss the appeal of the Department. Operative part of the order announced in the open Court.
-
1988 (6) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Imports from Burma ... ... ... ... ..... or must choose only from preferential rates of duty. That being the case I direct that assessment in all these cases shall be made in accordance with the decisions of this Tribunal in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 559 and 1987 (30) E.L.T. 545. 14. Per U. Rao, Member (T) . - In my opinion the interpretation suggested by the learned JDR would nullify the purpose of the Notification. A Notification has to be interpreted in a way that it does not become a nullity. Therefore, while I do not agree with the reasoning given by my learned Brother, I concur with Paragraph-13 of the order. 15. Per G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) . - Since I agree that the assessment in all these cases be made in accordance with the decisions of this Tribunal reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 559 and 1987 (30) E.L.T. 545, I do not think it necessary to express any opinion regarding the interpretation of Notification in question as suggested either by my learned brother Shri H.R. Syiem, Member (T) or by Shri I.J. Rao, Member (T).
-
1988 (6) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Provisional Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... be invoked in this case is also not acceptable. In this case there has been evasion of duty of over one lakh of rupees and it can legally be presumed that the party has contravened the rules with intent to evade payment of duty. Proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 11-A will therefore apply and as such the claim is not time barred rdquo . There is no such legal presumption as assumed by the Assistant Collector. In the first place, it has to be shown by the department that there has been evasion of duty. In the second place, the department has to show that there has been contravention of the law with intent to evade payment of duty. Merely because there has been a short levy or short payment of duty for whatever reason, it cannot ldquo legally rdquo be presumed that there has been evasion and that there has been deliberate contravention with intent to evade. 9. In the circumstances, the order passed by Collector (Appeals) is correct and is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (6) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Steel furniture ... ... ... ... ..... proved. rdquo This, it is needless to add, is hardly the way to follow in quasi-judicial proceedings. 9. The statement dated 11-3-1980 of Shri H.K. Sharma, Supervisor, of the Acharya Nagar unit also does not support the Department rsquo s case. 10. In our view, all these pieces of evidence put together do not result in the conclusion that the Acharya Nagar unit had been assembling furniture out of parts made with the aid of power at the Industrial Estate unit. If this be so, the steel furniture manufactured at the former unit did not attract excise duty since only such furniture ldquo in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power rdquo fell within the purview of Item No. 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. 11. We do not consider that the Department has established its case. The appellants, therefore, succeed. The appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1988 (6) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Goods intended for use in the factory of manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... stan Insecticides Ltd., Cochin v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin reported in 1984 (3) ETR 1 1988 (33) E.L.T. 575 (Tribunal). That case related to goods which had been cleared under the procedure laid down in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, free of duty in terms of Notification No. 34/73. The duty on the unaccounted goods was demanded in terms of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal held that mere intention to use the goods for the specified purpose could not be a basis for the duty concession and that the goods must be really used as intended. It held that actual use must follow intention if the concession is to be earned, unless the intention is frustrated by the intervention of events such as natural causes or unavoidable accident. We have already noted that the goods in the present case were destroyed in a fire accident. The decision relied upon by the Collector does not, therefore, help the department rsquo s case. 6. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1988 (6) TMI 253 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Revision - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ed to the provisions of Section 153 of the Customs Act. After referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda and Others the Gujarat High Court observed - ldquo The giving of the notice is not complete unless and until it reaches the person concerned or its actual tender to him. Merely despatching of the notice to the address of the person does not complete the giving of the notice. rdquo 25. Since the giving of the notice in the instant case to the respondents was only on 12-10-1982, we accept the contention of Shri Nankani that there was no valid initiation of the proceeding by the Central Government before the appointed date. After the appointed date, the Central Government was not vested with the power of revision. In -the circumstances, no action can be taken against the respondents herein in pursuance of the notice issued on 8-10-1982 but received by the respondents on 12-10-1982. 26. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (6) TMI 244 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - Additional Licence ... ... ... ... ..... ccording to the Department it was issued on 10-9-1982 and according to the importers it was issued on 29-3-1982. Since the licence was issued during the policy period 1982 and since the procedure of that policy period permitted appointment of agents even if the letter of authority had been issued on 10-9-1982 the import could not be objected having regard to the above judgment of the Bombay High Court. Since this appeal could succeed on this ground alone it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to the date of issue of the letter of authority though much can be said in favour of the importers particularly having regard to the certificate issued by the bank which is an independent authority and the genuineness of the certificate had not been doubted by the Additional Collector. 8. In the result this appeal succeeds. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector and direct that the appellants be granted consequential relief.
-
1988 (6) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... 5. Cause was required to be shown to the Collector. On 27-12-1985, Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act had been brought into force in terms of which in a case where the Revenue proposed to invoke the extended period of 5 years for demand of duty from a manufacturer alleging suppression, wilful mis-statement of facts etc. on the part of the manufacturer, the notice to show cause should be issued by the Collector. As held by the Tribunal in Mysore Prefabs and Prefabs India v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 487 and Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 442 a show cause notice issued in such circumstances by an officer other than the Collector would not be legal and proceedings in pursuance of such a notice would also be not legally tenable. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1988 (6) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... drug intermediates regarding end-use was considered necessary because those drug intermediates could be used as chemicals in other allied chemical industries. Here the goods are clearly drugs being of pharmacopoeial grade as mentioned earlier and therefore, there is no reason to attach any condition to such goods for the purpose of extending the benefit of Notification 55/75. We do not accept the Department rsquo s contention in its two appeals that importer must be an actual user is necessarily implied in Notification 55/75. No such implication can be read in the notification in respect of goods which are admittedly lsquo drugs rsquo . Department clearly admits in the two appeals that the goods are assessable under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff. In effect it admits that the goods are lsquo drugs rsquo . 6. In view of the foregoing discussion we allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the appellants. Consequently last two appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
-
1988 (6) TMI 235 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import of old and used goods ... ... ... ... ..... cash memos under which he sold the remaining 76 crank shafts. Further, the market price to be taken into consideration is about the time of importation and not three or four months thereafter. The appellant had an opportunity to adduce evidence as to the market price they did not wish to do so. According to Shri Prabhu before levying the fine market enquiry had been made. Since two authorities have concurrently come to the conclusion that the fine levied does not exceed market price less duty we will not be justified in interfering in the quantum of fine particularly in view of the absence of precise evidence regarding the market price. It is true that there is no legal obligation on the part of the adjudicating authority to impose fine equivalent to market price. But then, in the case of unauthorised imports importer cannot be allowed to make profit out of his illegal transaction. 10. In the result and for the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1988 (6) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron - Machined cast iron rolls ... ... ... ... ..... t specified elsewhere in the CET. There is no doubt, whatsoever that these so-called semi-finished products are goods in the sense that they are marketable inasmuch as annexures lsquo D rsquo to lsquo G rsquo clearly point towards that fact. Annexures lsquo D rsquo to lsquo G rsquo are copies of orders placed by Davy Ashmore India Limited on the respondent company. These indicate that the goods as required to be supplied by the respondent company in accordance with these orders are either to be exported or to be sent to the clients of Davy Ashmore. Learned SDR rsquo s distinction from Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of TISCO mentioned supra is well drawn on the peculiar facts of this case. 7. Hence in view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the goods as they are cleared are also separately liable to duty under Tariff Item 68. Apart from their being liable to duty as castings at an earlier stage after fettling but before machining. Hence, we allow the appeal.
-
1988 (6) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... nt confirmed by the Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector of Customs. 5. Shri Sogani has drawn our attention to the Explanatory Notes in Brussels Tariff Nomenclature to show that baker ovens are excluded from Chapter 84.30. The Explanatory Notes relied upon by him have no statutory effect. These are also not relevant in the facts of the present case as the imported machine is not an oven, but it is a bakery machine. Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 of the C.T.A. relied upon by Shri Sogani is not relevant to the present case as the said Chapter Note speaks of a machine which has got alternative uses. The situation is different in the present case. 6. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the imported machine is not an oven, but it is a bakery machine. It is correctly classifiable under Heading 84.30(1) of the C.T.A., 1975. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (6) TMI 232 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rcles are nothing but sheets and therefore, they are covered by Tariff Heading 73.15(2) in view of the Note 1(n) to Chapter 73. As regards the learned Consultant rsquo s attempt to distinguish the two cases on the basis of the dimension of the goods in question that their width is less than 500 mm is to be stated to reject it. No dimensions have been given in the said Note for non-rectangular shapes. Therefore, the question of considering that the width of the goods under consideration is less than 500 mm. is untenable. Further, the question of giving any dimension widthwise for any non-rectangular shape just cannot arise. The question of length and width can arise only in rectangular shapes alone and it is apparently for this reason that the Chapter Note 1(n) deliberately does not provide any dimension for non-rectangular shape. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion and relying on the judgments of Delhi High Court and Madras High Court mentioned supra, we reject the appeal.
-
1988 (6) TMI 231 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... ing had been administered to any other importer in respect of the import of items similar to the items imported by the appellants subsequent to the clearance of similar items by the appellants during the Policy AM 79. In the circumstances, the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1980 E.L.T. page 3 as well as the ratio of the decision of the CEGAT reported in 1983 E.L.T. 816 applies to the facts of the present case. The authorities below seem to think whenever the goods are liable to confiscation fine should be levied. That is not the law. If the authorities were satisfied as to the bonafide of the importers, the ends of justice would be met by cautioning the importers as to the future import. 20. The fine besides being harsh was not at all justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. I, therefore, while confirming the order of confiscation, set aside the fine levied in lieu of confiscation. The fine, if paid shall be refunded to the appellants.
-
1988 (6) TMI 230 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seizure list made after two days of seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ities and the goods being large in number, nearly 8,000 pcs, the authorities took time to sort them out before effecting seizure. The ruling relied on by the learned counsel has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the ruling cited by the learned counsel the Supreme Court has found that the statement was recorded under threat and coercion attracting the bar under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, on careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, we are inclined to hold that the charge against the appellant has been brought home. Taking into consideration the fact that the seizure was in the year 1982 and that the appellant has completely disowned the goods which have been absolutely confiscated, we are inclined to hold that the interests of justice would be met if the penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) and we order accordingly. Except for this modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1988 (6) TMI 229 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import of Thiamine being canalised, Import not covered by valid licence ... ... ... ... ..... mption fine, we cannot but feel especially in view of the orders issued at the high level of the Central Board of Excise and Customs that this is one of those cases where there was a genuine scope for holding two different interpretations. That also was the justification for the issue of Public Notice 29/80. The learned advocate has cited in his favour the decision in the case of Shama Engine Valves Limited v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1984 (18) ELT 533 as well as the judgment of Hon rsquo ble Justice M.L. Pendse in the Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 50 (Bom.) 1984 ECR 886. The ratio of the decisions and inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Having regard to our finding that there is scope for two interpretations we reduce the fine amount to 25 of the C.I.F. value. The appellants be granted consequential relief. In other respects the appeals are rejected.
-
1988 (6) TMI 228 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import of Thiamine being canalised, Import not covered by valid licence ... ... ... ... ..... mption fine, we cannot but feel especially in view of the orders issued at the high level of the Central Board of Excise and Customs that this is one of those cases where there was a genuine scope for holding two different interpretations. That also was the justification for the issue of Public Notice 29/80. The learned advocate has cited in his favour the decision in the case of Shama Engine Valves Limited v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1984 (18) ELT 533 as well as the judgment of Hon rsquo ble Justice M.L. Pendse in the Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 50 (Bom.) 1984 ECR 886. The ratio of the decisions and inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Having regard to our finding that there is scope for two interpretations we reduce the fine amount to 25 of the C.I.F. value. The appellants be granted consequential relief. In other respects the appeals are rejected.
-
1988 (6) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
fraud or suppression ... ... ... ... ..... adjudged by the Collector in each case is very moderate and only a fraction of the customs duty sought to be evaded by the appellants. Citing of Section 111 (d) in the final order of confiscation was only a typographical error and the very moderate fine and penalty bears it out in each case. Secondly, the amount of fine in each case did not exceed the sum total of even the value as declared by the appellants themselves plus the customs duty chargeable thereon. There could, therefore, be no question of the amount of fine exceeding the Indian market price of the goods. As regards the justification for imposing fine and penalty, the facts of this case as discussed earlier speak for themselves. If fine and penalty were not justified in a case of blatant fraud and manipulation of documents as the one before us, we wonder whether there could be any case at all in which fine and penalty would be warranted. 20. In the result, we find no merit in these appeals and dismiss all of them.
-
1988 (6) TMI 210 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... e in law the appellant is entitled to take MODVAT credit in respect of metal container. , 4. Heard Shri K.K. Bhatia, the learned S.D.R. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. We are not able to accede to the plea of the learned Consultant in regard to the availment of the MOD-VAT credit for metal containers. It is not disputed before us and is indeed admitted that lsquo the appellant had not filed any declaration in respect of lsquo metal containers for availing MODVAT credit. In interpreting the scope and ambit of Rule 57-G(2) this Tribunal in a number of decisions has already taken the view that a manufacturer who has not filed a-dec-laration under Rule 57G will not be entitled to take credit of duty paid on the inputs received by him under the MODVATscheme. The plea of the learned Consultant that it is only a condonable lapse or irregularity is not acceptable. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (6) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... h plastic granule rsquo s to see whether the machines so manufactured produce layflat tubings without any defects. Therefore, the plastic granules come to be used after the final product namely, the extrusion machine, manufactured by the respondents is fully finished. The testing is only done to detect defects if any in the finished product. In tHis view of the matter, and having regard to the scope of Rule 57A, we are unable to agree with the respondents that materials used for testing the fully finished machines would also be materials used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, namely, the extrusion machine. This view also finds support on a perusal of the Scheme of the MODVAT credit facility which excludes equipments, appliances used in the manufacture from the coverage of inputs for the purposes of credit of duty. Therefore, the order passed by the lower authorities is not sustainable in law, and, as such, the appeal filed by the Collector is allowed.
........
|
