|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 281 Records
-
1988 (2) TMI 387 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... red from the factory to their godown and then from these godowns to Nepal and Bhutan directly it cannot be said that the goods were cleared for home consumption. In other words, whether the goods were cleared from the factory of the appellant or from their own godown, the fact remains that they did not clear the goods for home consumption but exported the goods outside the country that is to say, to Bhutan and Nepal. Consequently the appellant was not entitled for the exemption under Notification No. 105/80 and since on their own admission the appellants had exported the goods to Nepal and Bhutan without payment of Central Excise duty, without taking out a licence and without submitting any declaration for the clearance of dutiable goods as required under Notification No. 111/78, the contravention of various rules as detailed out in the findings of the Assistant Collector in the impugned order stand proved. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
-
1988 (2) TMI 386 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... those using it understood as household soaps. Appellants have, however, not adduced evidence in any form - statements, literature and the like before this Bench as to such understanding. In absence of such evidence, it is not possible to record a finding on this plea merely on the presumption that toilet soap maybe a household soap. In absence of this evidence we do not think that we should depart from the ratio of the two decisions of the Tribunal. Besides, in respect of one of the units of the appellants, lsquo toilet soaps rsquo have been classified under the description lsquo other sorts rsquo under sub-item (2) of Tariff Item 15 and appeal against that decision has been admitted by the Supreme Court for hearing (this is on the basis of information given by the parties at the time of hearing). It would not appear prudent at this stage to depart from the two decisions of the Tribunal (supra). Following the two decisions with the observations above we dismiss these appeals.
-
1988 (2) TMI 385 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... Super Printers (1987 Vol. 30 E.L.T. 745) and VXL Ltd. (1988 Vol. 14 ECR 200). The Tribunal held that the mere fact that raw materials were being supplied by the customer and that the same were to be utilised in the manufacture of articles to the specifications of the customer and that the manufactured articles were to be returned to the customer would not ......those reasons only, make the customer the manufacturer rather than the actual manufacturer of the product. Applying the same ratio, and in view of the discussion earlier, we hold that in the present instance also the manufacturers of the poles were the contractors and not the Appellant Board. We, therefore, held that the demand for payment of excise duty by the Appellant Board was not justified. 11. In view of the above conclusions it is unnecessary to consider the question of limitation raised by the appellant. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief, if any.
-
1988 (2) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... peal No. 1568/82-B2 is in respect of lsquo Measuring Head and Retraction Unit rsquo . The department seeks to classify it as lsquo Machine Device under Heading 90.28 (4) read with Heading 90.16(1). The respondents want the assessment under Heading 84.45/48 as part of machine tools. It was urged that this is merely a machine tool. But as rightly urged by the department, the function of the imported article is to serve as a lsquo Measuring Device rsquo . The main equipment is the lsquo grinding machine rsquo and the lsquo measuring head rsquo is designed for fitment in the machine. The function is to measure continuously during the process of grinding. I do not agree that it should be treated as an integral part of the grinding machine. The classification sought for by the department under Heading 90.28(4) read with Heading 90.16(1) of the C.T.A. is, therefore, correct. In this view, all the appeals have to be allowed. I concur in the judgement passed by the learned Member (J).
-
1988 (2) TMI 381 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Time limit ... ... ... ... ..... nion that the extended period of limitation in Section 11A of the Act is not applicable in the present case. The notice being, therefore, barred by limitation, is hereby set aside. 12. As regards penalty we are of the view that in the light of the discussions earlier no case has been made out for imposition of penalty. As observed by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (ECR-C-321 SC AIR 1965 SC 531) penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of obligations. The Supreme Court further held that ............ whether the breach flowed from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute no penalty is called for. Accordingly we hold that the imposition of penalty is also to be set aside. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
1988 (2) TMI 380 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... me and designation of the person have not been specified. It is not clear whether the said person was authorised to file the appeal. The notice of hearing for 10-12-1987 was returned by the Postal authorities with the remark that there was no mill functioning (at the given address) in the name and style of Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd. No other address is available on the file. On 10-12-1987, the Bench directed the Registry to issue notice for 15-2-1988 through the departmental authorities. The said notice has also been received back from the Collector with the report that M/s. Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd. (now U.P. State Sugar Corp.) had refused to receive the notice because it pertained to the erstwhile M/s. Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills. In the aforesaid circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence to show that the appeal has been filed by an authorised representative or person or legal entity who is competent to file the appeal, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.
-
1988 (2) TMI 379 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Gold - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Sec. 103 of the Act. Since in our opinion that the issue relating to the same should have been decided prior to the passing of the impugned order and not clubbed with the impugned order alleging contraventions under the Act. We direct that the issue as to whether the appellant would be entitled to claim of the benefits of Section 103 of the Act as a legatee may again be gone into after affording the appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard. We further direct that the inquiry in this regard shall be taken up expeditiously and concluded preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order and in the meanwhile the appellant would not be entitled to carry on business as a licensed dealer. In the result the impugned order confiscating the gold ornaments in the possession of the appellant and permitting redemption of the same on a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with consequential penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is, therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed to that extent.
-
1988 (2) TMI 378 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... value. In his adjudication the Collector quotes the assessees rsquo submissions that their exports took place with the full knowledge and approval of the departmental officers, and even bonds executed for the export of excisable goods were subsequently discharged to the satisfaction of the competent authorities. The Collector agreed with this and said that the allegation that the goods were exported with the intention to evade payment of duty was not proved and that accordingly the demand in this case which is more than six months old compared to the issue of the show cause notice ldquo shall be barred. rdquo (sic). 8. The circumstances are exactly the same. But this order of 26-7-1983 is a later order. We can say there has been a change in the Collector rsquo s perception, a change that came from perhaps better understanding of the circumstances. Following this, we can hold that the order in respect of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel was wrong and needs to be set aside. And do so.
-
1988 (2) TMI 372 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ue that the present order rejecting the appeal was passed for failure of the applicants to comply with Section 35F of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 relating to pre-deposit of duty demanded or comply with the stay order passed by the Tribunal. Assuming, however, that this bar had not operated against the applicant, the Tribunal would necessarily have been required to determine question as to the rate of duty of excise. That the appeal involved determination of question as to rate of duty is not disputed even by Shri Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicant. The words ldquo having a relation rdquo are of wide import. The order in respect of which the present application is made cannot be read in isolation divorced from the questions involved in the main appeal. Our this view finds support from the Tribunal decision in Union Carbide India Ltd. (supra) on which Shri Chakraborti has placed reliance. We, therefore, find the present application not maintainable and reject the same.
-
1988 (2) TMI 371 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ot available to the respondents as their removals, were of boxes containing less than 50 matches. The Collector (Appeals) has noted in this connection that duty is payable on matches at the rate pertaining to thousand or fraction thereof. The notification makes available the concessional rate in respect of boxes packed with 50 matches each. It appears to us that to read the notification to mean that the benefit thereunder could be available only if each box is packed with exactly 50 matches would not be right. While it will be permissible to deny the benefit of the notification if the number of matches exceed 50 per box, it would not be proper to deny the benefit when the packing is of less than 50 per box. We, therefore, agree with the Collector (Appeals) that the denial of the benefit to the respondents was not correct. In this view it is unnecessary to consider the other issue raised in the appeal regarding the period of limitation. 4. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (2) TMI 366 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... per foil. According to Rule 3(a) of the Rules for Interpretation, it should, therefore, be classified under this specific Heading in preference to the general Heading 7413.90. Rule, 3(a) says ldquo The Heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description rdquo . Even otherwise, in a taxing statute where two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which is favourable to the assessee, should be taken. This ratio was laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. v. J.K. Hosiery Factory - (1986) 159 ITR 85 (S.C.). A similar view was taken by Bombay High Court in the case of Decan Sales Corporation and Another v. R. Parthasarthy and Others 1982 E.L.T. 885 (Bombay) . 13. ensp In the light of the foregoing discussions, we uphold the decision of the Collectors of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay and Madras, and dismiss all the three appeals filed by the Revenue.
-
1988 (2) TMI 365 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... ensp Per V.P. Gulati, Member (T) . - Following with respect the ratio of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Order No. 697/88-C, dated 12-9-1988 as mentioned above, I agree with Brother Shri Mandal and hold that there is no proper authorisation in this case as required under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 and the appeal, therefore, in this view, is not maintainable in law and is dismissed. FINAL ORDER 17. ensp Following the majority view, we hold that there was no proper authorisation from the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta under Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to file these appeals. The appeals, therefore, are not maintainable and the same are dismissed. ensp ensp ensp ensp Sd/- ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp Sd/- ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp Sd/- D.C. Mendal, (V.P. Gulati) G.P. Agarwal, Member (T) Member (T) Member (J)
-
1988 (2) TMI 360 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... re-assessed under Heading 84.40 and consequential relief given to the appellants. 3. ensp As regards the lamp unit, the prayer of the appellants before the lower authority was for its classification under Heading 85.18/27(1) read with relevant exemption notification in force. Before us, the appellants sought its re-classification under Heading 84.40 as a part of the system. The learned Representative of the department stated that Heading 85.18/27(1) was more specific for mercury discharge lamp, i.e., the part itself. We agree with him. Since a specific heading for the lamp unit itself is available, there is no reason to assess it as a part of the machine. We accept the original prayer of the appellants for its classification under Heading 85.18/27(1) read with relevant exemption notification in force, direct re-assessment of the lamp unit accordingly and order that consequential relief, if any, be given to the appellants. 4. ensp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1988 (2) TMI 359 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Film laminates ... ... ... ... ..... the Assistant Collector and, as stated earlier, the finding of the Assistant Collector was that the goods were assessable to additional duty of Customs under Item No. 15A(2), CET. The Appellate Collector, on his part, did not give any finding on the classification under the CET. In these circumstances, we cannot uphold the claim for additional duty of Customs as contained in the adjudication order with reference to Item No. 15A(2) of the CET and have, therefore, to set it aside. However, since we have found that the goods were assessable to additional duty of Customs with reference to Item No. 17(2), CET, the respondent will be entitled to recover from the appellants additional duty of Customs with reference to this classification. If the demand has already been honoured by the appellants, and if the amount now found to be recoverable is similar than the amount paid, the balance shall be refunded to the appellants. 10. emsp The two appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1988 (2) TMI 358 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... /19(1) which is for chemical products and chemical preparations and residual chemical products, not elsewhere specified or included. 10. emsp The review show cause notice proceeds on the basis that the consignment imported by National Rayon Corporation (whose case was not taken up for review) were a complete heat exchanger and, therefore, correctly classifiable under Heading No. 84.17(1). We are not, in these proceedings, required to go into the correctness or otherwise of this classification. But it is clear that the same treatment will have to be given to the goods imported by Andhra Sugars Ltd. if, on scrutiny of the import documents such as Bill of Entry, Invoice etc., it is found by the Collector (Appeals) that they were a complete heat exchanger and not spares thereof. 11. emsp The appeals are allowed in the above terms and the matters remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for de novo consideration of the classification of the goods in the light of the above observations.
-
1988 (2) TMI 351 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... aken by the Government itself in the year 1983, it is seen that the banned medicine is of benefit to persons who are suffering from bronchial asthma. The proper approach in such cases is that injurious medicines should not be allowed to be manufactured and distributed. Similarly, beneficial medicines should not be made unavailable. While proceeding to issue rule and grant interim relief, I would strongly urge the Government, even at this stage, to apply its mind afresh to the whole question in the light of the relevant material and hear all the persons concerned on this question and then take an appropriate decision. This can be done even before the hearing and final disposal of this petition. A proper decision taken may prevent the use of an injurious medicine or it may remove the cloud which is hanging over the banned medicine. 12. Hence, rule, returnable on 12th June 1989. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e) (i) of the petition. Leterly to appear for a fixed date.
-
1988 (2) TMI 348 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... lants demanding differential duty did not set out any material to show that there was suppression of material facts on the part of appellants nor even contained in any allegation to that effect. The notice dated 8-1-1980, covered the year 1978-79 and the notice dated 26-3-1980 related to the period 18-6-1977 to 31-3-1978. In view of the position that no suppression was alleged in the show cause notices, and as we have seen, the appellants had placed all their cards on the table at least from 4-8-1977, the Assistant Collector was not entitled to invoke the larger period of five years in his adjudication order. The Appellate Collector was clearly in error in upholding this order. The two notices were also clearly beyond the normal period of six months for recovery of short levied duty. Therefore, we find that the notices were barred by limitation. 8. In the result, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1988 (2) TMI 347 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ubsequently amended by Notification No. 129-Cus/80, dated 1st July, 1980. He has stated that the appellants had duly complied with the terms of the notification. Shri L.C. Chakrabarty, the learned J.D.R. has pleaded that the plea which the appellants are taking now has not been taken earlier. 2. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellants had imported tyres for Scrapers as original equipment for their initial assembly. We had repeatedly held that the parts imported need not be specifically mentioned in the Notification and the Notification No. 129/80, dated 1st July, 1980 is clarificatory to Notification No. 35/79, dated 15th Feb., 1979. The appellants have filed a copy of the certificate from the DGTD and has also executed the Bond as prescribed in the Notification. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the three appeals. Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1988 (2) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ation. We have considered the said request as also the reason given at present in the application for condonation. 4. As earlier mentioned the delay in filing the appeal is sought to be explained on the ground that a test report was sought for from the Chief Chemist and the same had not been obtained by the time the appeal was filed. No indications are given as to when the step to send for the test report was taken and, if there was any delay in taking that step itself, why the delay had occurred. In any event it is not known why if the test report had not yet been received the appeal was filed without the same if the same was earlier felt necessary for preferring the appeal itself. On the facts and circumstances of this case we feel that no satisfactory explanation has been given as to why, the appeal could not have been filed within the normal time. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. The appeal is consequently dismissed as barred by the time.
-
1988 (2) TMI 343 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Cancellation of licence ... ... ... ... ..... s of Rs. 350/- each or in default, each of the partners were required to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both accused were also sentenced to suffer one-day rsquo s S.I. under Section 87 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. But all these facts, as appellants have rightly submitted before us, have undergone a change as a result of orders passed by the Government of India in revision and the acquittal of the appellants by the Court of Sessions. 9. Cancellation of licence under Section 50(1A) is a high penalty which can be considered merited only in cases where the offence is of a grave nature. This is not the case here. The department itself, both, at the level of the Collector (Appeals) and at the revision stage has obviously taken the view that in the circumstances of the case, leniency is merited. It would not be consistent with such leniency to cancel the licence. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the Collector of Customs (Preventive) and allow this appeal.
........
|
