Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 284 Records
-
1986 (7) TMI 274 - CEGAT,MADRAS
Seizure and confiscation of currency ... ... ... ... ..... about their rights or title to the same under law. In this view of the matter we find that the appellants have no legal title to the currency under seizure and the appeals in the circumstances are misconceived in law. Since the only question that arises for consideration is with reference to the appellants rsquo right to the currency under seizure and since we have already held for the reasons indicated above that the appellants are neither the owners of the currency nor have any title or right of any kind under law to make a claim therefore, we uphold the finding of the adjudicating authority under the impugned order with reference to the confiscation of the currency and reject these appeals. In view of our findings that the appellants are not entitled to the currency in question under law, we do not feel called upon to go into the other question with reference to the applicability of Sec. 121 or 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project imports - Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... subsequent. It is erroneous, in the premises, to say that the case cannot be adjudged in the context of subsequent events (iii) the question is not if the goods served the purpose for which they were imported. On the contrary, the question is if the conditions for the import had been scrupulously observed and adhered to (iv) the requisite amount was not paid. It was actually evaded on the pretext that the import was a project import, and meant for the expansion of an existing unit. The short levy was the direct result of such mis-statement as well as the suppression of all material facts relating to the transfer of the imported goods to the company from the Respondent (v) the penalty levied does not appear excessive if one were to take into account the duty sought to be evaded and the deliberate suppression and mis-statement indulged in by the Appellant. 10. In the premises, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Gold - Entries to be made in statutory record contemporaneously with transaction ... ... ... ... ..... case of Shri Kewal Krishan Butta and Bishan Dass Butta, New Delhi v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, supra Shri Parshotam Lal, M/s Parshotam Jewellers v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, supra M/s. Jamna Dass Parkash v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh, supra and M/s. Bharat Art Jewellers v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, supra, I am of the view that the penalty of Rs. 5000/- needs reduction and a penalty of proper nature would serve the purpose obviously to keep the appellant careful and vigilant in future. Accordingly, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 1000/- only. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi is set aside and the Order-in-Original No. l/GOLD/83 dated 10.2.1983 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh is restored but the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs.1000/- as stated above.
-
1986 (7) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rotor - Known by name of armature in trade ... ... ... ... ..... . 13. emsp We have difficulty in understanding the arguments about Shyama Electricals, they were manufacturers of armature till February 1975, but suddenly disappeared. The Collector is ambiguous in respect of Shyama Electricals saying at page 4 of his order that Even if the party rsquo s contention that M/ rsquo s. Shyama Electricals manufacturers existed during the relevant period is accepted, M/s. Raka Electricals are the manufacturers as defined under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. 14. emsp He does not say clearly whether M/s. Shyama Electricals are accepted as manufacturers or not. We have our own doubts. It would seem Raka Electricals conjured up Shyama Electricals in order to explain away their past manufactures of armature which were supplied to the Railways without payment of the duty. We are not convinced by this explanation and therefore we will not interfere with the orders of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The appeal is rejected.
-
1986 (7) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Product import - Conditions unexceptionable ... ... ... ... ..... the I.T.C. authorities. Neither of these observations would arise had the Assistant Collector rsquo s order been read with due care. 23. emsp There is another palpably wrong observation in the impugned order to the effect that the Assistant Collector had rejected the appellants rsquo request for registration of import under the lsquo Project-import Registration of Contract rsquo Regulations, whereas the fact remains that no such application had even been made prior to the importation or clearance of goods, and the Assistant Collector was only dealing with refund claim filed subsequent to the registration of the contract, for which application had been made long after the clearance of the goods. 24. emsp For all these reasons, the order of the Collector in this case is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept the appeal and restore the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 31.10.83 rejecting the refund claim of the appellants.
-
1986 (7) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Textured yarn - ‘Includes bulked yarn’. ... ... ... ... ..... tant, however, is to see whether, at all, in this case duty is payable in terms of Rule 9A(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We observe that in the present matters the dates of actual removal of the goods are ascertainable. There are a number of decisions of this Tribunal that when the dates of actual removal of goods are ascertainable, as is the case in the present matter, Rule 9A(l)(ii) and not Rule 9A(5) would apply during the period in dispute. These decisions of the Tribunal are as follows - (i) M/s. Daya Ram Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. (ii) M/s. Veekayan Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 596 Chandigarh. (iii) M/s. Bata India Ltd. - Order No. 540/1986 (A.No. E/SB/T/1175/ 81D). Accordingly, we hold that in the present case duty would be payable as per rate of duty and valuation applicable on the date of actual removal of such goods from the concerned factories. 26. In the result, both appeals are dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 259 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appellate Tribunal’s jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... nt findings of facts. But then if the findings are arrived at without considering the material evidence or if they are opposed to the evidence or approach to the evidence itself was not proper or if the inferences drawn did not flow from the facts established of if there is misapplication of law or if the authorities have ignored the important evidence the Tribunal has the power to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. The Tribunal, however, cannot set aside the finding of facts only on the ground that a view different from the view taken by the authorities below was also possible. In the absence of any fetter on the power of the Tribunal to hear the second appeal on questions of facts the point raised by the Collector would not arise from our order in the appeal rsquo . Factually also, there was no such contention taken during the hearing of the appeal. 7. On consideration of all aspects, we see no merit in this application. We, therefore, reject this application.
-
1986 (7) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Excise - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... on 28-12-1976 to which Bata sent a reply on 18-4-77. The Range Superintendent called for full particulars of such machines on 22-7-1978 and it was only after a series of reminders that the full data was forwarded by Bata who also paid the duty. These findings of the Collector remains unrebutted. We cannot possibly view infractions of law by a Company of the standing of Bata with the same lenient attitude which a small manufacturer not full conversant with excise law and procedure may possibly deserve. We further notice the Board has substantially reduced the penalty amount. In the circumstances, we do not see any justification to modify the Board rsquo s order in this regard. 16. emsp In the result, we modify the Board rsquo s order to the extent of ordering that duty is chargeable only in terms of rule 9A(1)(ii). Any duty paid in excess should be refunded to the appellants. The Board rsquo s order is confirmed in other respects. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1986 (7) TMI 257 - CEGAT,NEW DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... of valuation is involved. In the circumstances I consider that substantial justice requires that the appeals be heard and the issues duly decided. Disposal of the appeals without consideration of their merits purely on the basis of a delay of 2 days would not be in consonance with the principle of advancing substantial justice. 40. emsp In short, I hold that in dispatching the appeals by registered post 5 days prior to expiry of limitation period the applicant has not been guilty of negligence or inaction or want of bona fides. Substantial justice requires that the delay of 2 days be condoned. I hold that there is sufficient cause to condone the 2 days rsquo delay in filing of the 5 appeals under consideration. The point of difference referred to me is decided accordingly. 41. emsp These 5 applications are returned to the Bench which first heard them for passing appropriate orders in conformity with my decision. The Bench is not however required to hear the appeals on merits.
-
1986 (7) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... e reference to collapsible tubes is very important and supports the case of the appellants. When the Department was made aware of the product and the processes involved therein, it cannot be said that the appellants had mis-described the product and were clearing it with an intent to evade payment of duty. The invoices issued by the appellants have also been verified by the Central Excise Officers from time to time. There was no suppression or any wilful mis-statement on their part to invoke a longer period of limitation. Under these circumstances, we agree with Shri Sorabjee that the demand ought to be restricted to a period of six months of the show cause notice. (In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The classification of the product under T.I. 27(f) is confirmed. The demand would be restricted to 6 months prior to the dates of the respective show cause notices. The lower authorities will re-work the demand on the above basis. The appeal is disposed of accordingly).
-
1986 (7) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Machines and mechanical appliances ... ... ... ... ..... t herein had in the first instance contended that the machine in question is used for production line. This plea, therefore, of the learned SDR is not tenable. Purpose of the machine or use of the machine has to be necessarily gone into in view of the wording of heading 84.59(2), as rightly contended by the learned Advocate for the respondents. Last plea of the learned SDR that the catalogue shows the function of the machine only as cutting and not as production of mattresses etc. is without any force. Catalogues are not made out by the manufacturers of the goods solely with a view to determination of classification under the CTA 1975. Function of the catalogue is to explain the general use and purpose of the goods in question for effecting the sale of such goods. 7. emsp Having regard to the foregoing discussion, we have no doubt that the machine in question is classifiable under Tariff heading 84.59(2) as held by the Collector (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
-
1986 (7) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NONEW DELHI
Demand untenable ... ... ... ... ..... counted for. The learned SDR has sought to make the point that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the Oudh Sugar Mills case would not apply here for the reason that that decision related to the period before the self-removal procedure period. He has instead cited a number of decisions relating to Bhoormull, Natwarlal Damodardas, Soni and Balumal Jamnadas (supra) all of which are in fact relating to customs cases and interpretation of the Customs law, and, therefore, not applicable to excise matters. We may add that there is no warrant for the belief that in the post self-removal procedure period, simply because physical control has been lifted, therefore, the Department can raise demand for duty and impose penalty even where no conclusive evidence is available of surreptitious manufacture and removal of excisable goods. 35. emsp Accordingly the orders of the lower authorities, including the demand of duty and the imposition of penalty are set aside and appeal allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 253 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import of canalised items not permitted under OGL ... ... ... ... ..... opra was canalised through the STC under Appendix 9, para No. 5(ii) of the Import Policy for the year 1980-81. Therefore this restriction would not permit the import of copra under OGL No. 4 in terms of condition No. 13. In this view, the Collector rsquo s order for confiscating the goods and levy of penalty on the Appellants is correct. Accordingly I confirm the same and reject the appeal. 5. emsp The Appellants have also requested for issue of a detention certificate so that the Appellants could claim relief from the wharf rent from the Bombay Port Trust. It is seen that this aspect does not form a part of the Collector rsquo s order against which M/s Liberty Oil Mills approached the Government. Besides the issue of the certificate is not decided under the Customs Act and therefore this Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the Appellants request for the issue of a wharf rent exemption certificate. Accordingly, this request of the Appellants is also rejected.
-
1986 (7) TMI 252 - CEGAT BOMBAY
Conveyance - Stopping or stopping and searching ... ... ... ... ..... 4. emsp As regards the personal penalty on the owner of the truck, the finding of the Addl. Collector is - ldquo I find from the evidence on record that it was with his full knowledge and connivance that the truck was to be used for transportation of contraband. It is quite possible that out of the five persons, two who escaped apprehension by the Customs Officers, one could have been the owner i.e. Chimaji Ghadge himself rdquo . The personal penalty was imposed under Sec. 117 of the Customs Act. In his order the Collector did not state which provision of the Customs Act was violated by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the penalty levied on the owner of the vehicle is without jurisdiction and the same is set aside. 15. emsp In the result this appeal is allowed. The order of confiscation of vehicle and imposition of the personal penalty of Rs.1,000/- on the appellant are set aside. The vehicle shall be released to the owner and the penalty if paid shall be refunded to him.
-
1986 (7) TMI 251 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... refore, accept the first view that the date of the discovery of the mistake of law is the relevant date and not the date of filing of the refund claim. All that we are required now to do is to apply these principles to the present case. In view of the foregoing discussions based on the case law enunciating the correct position of law, we have no hesitation in holding that a refund claim filed within three years of the discovery of the mistake is very much within time and is not time-barred. We, therefore, hold that the claim is within time. We, accordingly, hold that the date of discovery of mistake being 20.6.1980, the only law which was open to or available to the appellants for claiming refund at the relevant date was the common law and, therefore, the Contract Act and Limitation Act would apply. In the result, the appeal succeeds. It is held that the claim is within time. The lower authorities are directed to consider the matter accordingly and to pass appropriate orders.
-
1986 (7) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Denial of - Deprival of opportunity to substantiate case ... ... ... ... ..... the Collector of Customs to whom we are remanding the matter. 25. emsp In our view, the procedure adopted by the Collector of Customs does not inspire confidence and does not conform to equity, justice and good conscience. Revenue did not have proper opportunity to substantiate its case. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo decision to the Collector of Customs, Bombay and the evidence which was produced before the Tribunal shall be admitted and read as evidence before him. The parties would be at liberty to adduce any further evidence with the permission of the Collector of Customs. After hearing the parties and affording opportunity of hearing as aforesaid, the Collector of Customs shall decide the matter de novo and in accordance with law. As the matter is old, we direct that it may be decided within a period of six months from the date of receipt of these orders by the Collector of Customs. 26. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1986 (7) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Revision by Central Government - Appellate order relating to demand for short levy ... ... ... ... ..... posted for hearing on merits with reference to the part dealing with confiscation and levy of penalty. 24. emsp Order per G. Sankaran, Vice President (T) . - I have perused the order proposed by learned Brother Raghavachari. I feel, however, that we do not have to discuss and record a finding on the question whether the Central Government could, in a notice under Section 36(2) of the Act, demand an amount of duty higher than that set out in the original show cause notice issued by the lower authorities. That does not appear to be necessary for disposal of the present matters. As has been lucidly set out in the proposed order, the review notice, dated 2-5-1980 is even otherwise hit by limitation and has to be discharged. The notice, dated 21-8-80 is also hit by limitation in so far as it pertains to demand for duty but is not so in relation to the other aspects. 25. emsp Subject to these observations, I agree that the appeals be disposed off in the manner mentioned in para 23.
-
1986 (7) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... with the defence of the appellant that a part of the goods seized was covered by the Baggage Receipt and, therefore, no offence is made out. Regarding the rest of the textile goods, it appears that the Collector (Appeals) also agreed with the defence of the appellant that the same were covered under proper vouchers. The Ld. SDR could not point out any perversity in the findings of the Collector (Appeals). It is settled law that when two views are possible, the Appellate Authority should not lightly interfere with the order of acquittal unless unerring and cogent evidence is produced to draw a converse conclusion. After going through the evidence on record and appreciating it in right perspective, I am of the view that the findings of the Collector (Appeals) on merits cannot said to be perverse or off the record so as to call for any interference by this Tribunal. 5. In the light of the foregoing discussions, I see no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refrigeration Unit - Levy of countervailing duty on ... ... ... ... ..... lueprint. The net result is that more space is gained in the process tank, greater efficiency in cooling, and minimal danger of damage to the chiller since it is no longer underneath the process tank where spillage could cause trouble. rdquo 6. emsp We find from the manufacturers rsquo catalogue and their letter dated 28-10-1976 that the imported refrigeration unit is a complete refrigerating appliance although it has been imported for use in anodizing plant. Item 29A of the Central Excise Tariff covers ldquo Refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery, all sorts and parts thereof. rdquo The scope of this Tariff item is wide enough to cover the imported refrigerating unit. The Appellate Collector, therefore, correctly held that c.v. duty under item 29A(i) C.E.T. was leviable on the refrigerating unit imported by the appellants. There is no justification to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1986 (7) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim- Arising out of excess production scheme ... ... ... ... ..... amended rule had expired could not help the respondent and the claim for refund made on 8.5.79 must be held to be time barred. 7. emsp As a result, the respondents rsquo claim for refund to the extent it relates to the period 10-2-1977 to 31-3-1977 is held within time. It shall be worked out in accordance with law and refunded. Rest of the claim is held to be beyond limitation following the decision, in Steel Authority of India rsquo s case (supra). 8. emsp The appeals to the extent the respondents rsquo claim related to 10-2-1977 to 31-3-1977 are dismissed and for the rest of the claim allowed and this part of the claim held to be beyond limitation and the respondents rsquo claim for this amount dismissed. The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise are upheld to the extent they relate to the respondents rsquo claim for refund for the period 10.2.77 to 31.3.77 and for the rest set aside. 9. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the foregoing terms.
........
|