|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 263 Records
-
1989 (7) TMI 251 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ubmitted that the learned Collector has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the value of the goods were Rs. 26,000/- which presumably has been based on the show cause notice and the corrigendum show cause notice seems to have been not seen by the Collector. The submissions of Sri Bajoria to this extent has to be accepted. The redemption fine is, therefore, reduced to Rs. 5,000/- as per the value of the corrigendum show cause notice. The penalty imposed under Section 114 stands also reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand). Keeping in view the value of the goods seized. The appellant succeeds in part. 12. Sri Bajoria submitted that the penalty and redemption fine has already been paid in the event of the appellant having deposited redemption fine and penalty, the balance amount shall be refunded to him within four months from the date of this order. With this modification, the reduction of redemption fine and penalty, as stated supra, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... f job work even if the end-product of the manufacturing process was different from the material used at its commencement. The judgment of Bombay High Court is contrary to the judgment of Madras High Court. Following the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in paragraph 26 of the Larger Bench decision in the case of National Organic Chemicals Industries case (supra), we prefer to follow the judgment of Madras High Court referred to above. 6. In the present case, completely different products, viz., corrugated board and corrugated board boxes, were manufactured by the appellants from the kraft paper supplied. The process of manufacture undertaken by-them was primary manufacture. Following the Larger Bench decision, reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331 (Tribunal), we, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. Consequently, we upheld the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
1989 (7) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clearance of goods ... ... ... ... ..... hin the meaning of Chapter IX of the Customs Act, the unit not being a wareshouse. The unit of the respondents was not licensed under Section 57 or 58 of the Customs Act, the goods were imported under home consumption bills of entry under Section 46 of the Act and not under into-bond bills of entry. The goods were also removed from the unit under home consumption bills of entry. The facility of following the procedure of manufacturing operation in bond in Kandla Free Trade Zone is a special concession given to facilitate the smooth operation of the scheme of Free Trade Zone. This should not be misunderstood for applying the provisions of Chapter IX of the Customs Act and Section 15(l)(a) ibid. Clause (c) of Section 15(1) is applicable when the scope of application of clauses (a) and (b) is exhausted. Clause (a) is applicable in this case. Rate of duty in terms of clause (c) of Section 15(1) is not applicable. 9. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1989 (7) TMI 248 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... this view of the matter, I hold that the appellants cannot be said to be lsquo Actual Users (Industrial) rsquo as far as the items under dispute are concerned. 13. Alternatively, the appellants have sought clearance of the goods under question under an additional licence dated 17-7-1985. This claim of the appellants was also rejected by the Additional Collector. A copy of the said licence is placed on record. On perusal of the licence I find that the same has been issued as per sub-paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 of para 265 of the Import and Export Policy, 1985-88. Para 265(b) read with para 263(4) makes it clear that ultimately the goods should be used by lsquo Actual User (Industrial) rsquo . I have already held that the appellants cannot be termed to be lsquo Actual Users (Industrial) rsquo . Therefore, this alternative plea of the appellants is also rejected. 14. In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Additional Collector. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 247 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... put on by the purchasing companies rsquo workmen engaged in hot jobs or in handling corrosive substances in the course of manufacture can be stated to have been used in the manufacture of goods for sale. Here again it is not a disputed fact that refractory material is required in the manufacture of steel. What is disputed is that refractory materials are used for the maintenance of the machines or for making the machine operational. We, therefore, hold that both the citations are not helpful in this case, where a specific explanation is given under Rule 57A to exclude certain items, though are used for purpose of production. 15. In the result, we hold that refractories used in the steel industry are hit by the explanation to Rule 57A, because of the fact that they go in relation to the machinery and form part of the machinery and equipment and therefore the authorities below are justified in disallowing the credit in respect of the duty paid on this item. Appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste - Industrial waste ... ... ... ... ..... non-excisable, there was no question of declaring the facts to the department which otherwise the department knew. So, there was no question of clandestine removal also. Copy of show cause notice is not on record. But in the impugned order, the ld. Collector has not stated that there was any mis-representation. So, there are no grounds to invoke the extended period of limitation. In that case a show cause notice dated 2-12-1985 raising demand for the period from 1-9-82 to 26-11-1985 would clearly be time-barred for the period before 2-6-85. So, to that extent, the demand of excise duty can be time-barred. But as we are allowing the appeals on merits, it is not necessary for us to enter into the calculation of the time barred demand. 19. Appeal No. 1820/85-C, filed by the Revenue, will have to be dismissed. So we pass the following order (i) Appeals Nos. E/09/89-C and E/364/89-C are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. (ii) Appeal No. E/1820/85-C is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... articular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same heading (including a machine of Heading No. 84.79 or 85.43) are to be classified with the machines of that kind. However, parts which are equally suitable for use principally with the goods of Heading Nos. 85.17 and 85.25 to 85.28 are to be classified in Heading No.85.17. This point was not raised before the lower authorities and we do not have the benefit of their findings. In the circumstances, while holding that the impugned spare parts included in the ldquo spares package rdquo are not assessable under the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963, we remand the matter to the Assistant Collector of Customs for de novo examination of the point whether the imported spare parts in dispute are covered by Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI for assessment under the said Tariff Heading alongwith the main simplex sheet cutter. 6. The appeal is allowed by remand on the limited issue as stated in the preceding paragraphs.
-
1989 (7) TMI 236 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... as persons concerned. By that time, both had, in their statement before the police, implicated two police constables. If the appellant too, was involved, and both Shantigar and Meraman had abetted him as now alleged by them, then the appellant could have, very conveniently avoided producing them before the customs officers. The conduct of the appellant is thus contra indicative of his alleged involvement. 16. If at all any credence could be given to what these two persons have stated before both the Police and Customs authority, at the best, that can involve two constables. 17. The order of the Additional Collector holding the appellant liable to penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, therefore, cannot be sustained. 18. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Additional Collector holding the appellant liable to imposition of perity under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, and order imposing penalty of Rs. 2500, is therefore, set aside.
-
1989 (7) TMI 235 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... als and set aside the orders appealed against. 10. As far as Appeal No. E-175/86-Cal. relating to the Order-in-Appeal No. 38-38A/Cal-l/86, dated 20-2-1986 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and Order-in-Original No. 1(26B) (18)81/34-AC/Cal-F/85 dated 13-9-1986 is concerned, the question of submission of D-3 intimation as required under Rule 173L has to be decided afresh by the Collector (Appeals). I accordingly remand the above case viz. A.No. F-175/86-Cal. back to Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta for deciding the limited issue of receipt of intimation of the returned goods. 11. In the light of the above discussions, Appeal Nos. E-173/86, E-174/86, E-176/86 and E-177/86 are allowed. Appeal No. E-175/86 is remanded to Collector (Appeals) as mentioned above. 12. Finally, as these appeals relate to transactions during 1981 and as considerable time has passed, I direct that the lower authorities may grant the refund due to the appellants expeditiously.
-
1989 (7) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Graphic Display Terminal ... ... ... ... ..... computer. In other words, more and more of the communication functions can be performed inside the terminal rather than by the CPU. Micro processors are now being used in all functional areas of intelligent terminal design, including print mechanisms, carriage control, interface control and maintenance testing. The more intelligence placed in the terminal, the less is required of the host computer. rdquo It clarifies that the heart of any intelligent terminal, its micro-processor, allows the terminal two basic operations previously impossible at the terminal level. 17. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the item imported by the appellants is a lsquo graphic visual display terminal rsquo enumerated at Serial No. 8 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 186/87-Cus., dated 29-4-1987 and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of exemption under that notification with the consequential relief of refund of excess duty paid. 18. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 233 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seizure and confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... 18,408/- which is the value of the gold seized. 3. Taking into considerations the submissions of the appellant rsquo s counsel as well as the order of this Tribunal referred to by him, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) for not maintaining the GS 13 Register. 24. As regards the redemption fine, the same stands modified to Rs. 18,408/- being the value of the gold. The legal heirs of the appellant shall authorize one of them to pay the redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- only and such of the authorized representative of the legal heirs shall be entitled to get the seized gold ornaments redeemed. The authorities below shall hand over the gold ornaments within one month from the payment of the redemption fine and penalty to the authorized legal heir of the appellant. 25. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of the modification of the redemption fine and reduction of the penalty from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand).
-
1989 (7) TMI 232 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Stay ... ... ... ... ..... ima facie good case. The Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pondicherry v. New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 1980 E.L.T. 10 (Madras) had held that the Court is not to supply the deficiency in the notification. The decision in the case of Jain Engineering Company v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) does not help the respondents as the facts are different. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that prima facie revenue has got a good case on merits. Accordingly, we stay the impugned order in Appeal No. C25AP/461 to 463/88, dated 24th January, 1989. During the course of arguments Shri V. Sridharan, the learned Advocate has stated that there is recurring effect so an early hearing may be granted. There is no application for early hearing before us. Shri Sridharan, the learned Advocate is at liberty to file an application for early hearing in accordance with law.
-
1989 (7) TMI 231 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in the classification list, allegation of suppression or clandestine removal cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court in the case of Collector v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 have held that only when something positive, other than mere inaction or failure, is proved or where there is a conscious or deliberate withholding of information is established, allegation of suppression can be sustained. In this case, we are prima facie satisfied, based on the correspondences cited by the learned consultant that there had been no attempt at deliberate withholding of information nor any attempt at clandestine removal. In view of this position, we grant unconditional stay as to the recovery of penalties imposed on all the four applicants. Since there is no quantification of duty amount by the department and it is reported that the applicants rsquo firm on their own have already paid the duty as per their own calculation, no orders on this aspect are passed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... the said ground of the appeal there is a hand written remark ldquo not enclosed rdquo on the margin. This clearly shows that no copy of any order was enclosed to the appeal memorandum nor the citation of any such order given in the said ground of appeal. 5. During the hearing of the ROM application Shri Singh submitted photocopies of certain judgments. There is no scope for considering any of these judgments at this stage since I am not re-hearing the appeal, but considering the ROM application. The scope of ROM application is very limited and it is confined to any mistake which arise out of Tribunal rsquo s order and is apparent on record. In the present case, none of these judgments was cited by the appellant or his counsel at the stage of appeal before this Tribunal. Hence, I cannot look into the copies of these judgments. 6. In the light of the above discussions, I hold that the ROM application is frivolous and is without any substance. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 229 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export - Marine products ... ... ... ... ..... e motive of economic gain and in order to be a practice it has to be repeated on more than one occasion. Neither in the show-cause notice nor in the order, there is any allegation or finding which can, in my opinion, establish a case of any corrupt and fraudulent practice. 26. emsp Under the circumstances, the said show-cause notice dated 7th November, 1986 and the said order dated 11th September, 1987 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from giving any effect to the said impugned show-cause notice dated 7th November,1986 being Annexure lsquo F rsquo to the petition and also from giving any effect to the said order dated 11th September, 1987 being Annexure lsquo I rsquo to the petition. 27. There will be no order as to costs. 28. emsp The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents prays for stay of operation of this order for a period of 4 weeks. 29. Stay of operation of this order is granted limited to a period of 4 weeks from to-day.
-
1989 (7) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Proportional refund ... ... ... ... ..... f limitation under Section 11B to the claim. His submission that as the refund claims were submitted prior to 6-8-1977 they should be governed by the limitation which prevailed at that time is correct. The limitation in respect of these claims should, therefore, be in accordance with Rule 11 read with Rule 173J, as they stood at the material time. 8. With these observations we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asstt. Collector. He should verify the factual position regarding the use of the raw material and other relevant factors and grant the appellants such refund as is admissible under the law. 9. As it is a very old matter we direct that Assistant Collector should give priority to this matter and pass fresh orders within 3 months after the appellants file the necessary evidence about use of the raw material before him. He should extend to the appellants a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter. 10. The appeal is thus disposed of by remand.
-
1989 (7) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - REP licence ... ... ... ... ..... ns, resort can be made to comparison of like goods or similar goods. Here apart from the absence of any valid reasons for rejecting the invoice value, the comparison (for valuation) was made with goods which cannot be considered to be like or similar goods. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v.Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 203 (Del.), cited by the learned SDR cannot be applied to the facts of this case. The same observation goes for the second citation on the same point made by the learned SDR in Kailash Chandra v. Union of India reported in AIR 1961 (S.C.) 1346. As a result I allow the appeal. Order per K. Prakash Anand, Member (T) . - For reasons so ably brought out at length by Brother Shri Harish Chander, I agree with his findings and order. In terms of the views of majority, the appeal is rejected except to the extent of modification ordered in the judgment recorded by Member (Judicial) Shri Harish Chander.
-
1989 (7) TMI 226 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... e conclusion is based on the ground not indicated in the so-called ldquo notice of demand cum show cause notice rdquo , if at all the notice dated 15-7-1981, can be so interpreted, what is sought to be emphasised here however is that the notice of demand dated 15-7-1981, is even not taken as the show cause notice by the department, who has adjudicated the issue, on the points not shown in the said notice. 20. When any demand is made without issue of show cause notice, it cannot be sustained. The appeal of the appellants deserve to be allowed on that count alone. 21. I would have thought of remanding the matter for de novo proceeding by issue by proper show cause notice, but, by this time, the statutory period has already lapsed and the demand has became time-barred. 22. As the appeal stands allowed on this point, I see no reason to discuss other points urged, as they remain to be only of academic interest. 23. In the result, I allow the appeal. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1989 (7) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . The ratio of the Supreme Court rsquo s decision in M.R.F. (Supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case for two reasons. The main reason is that the Bombay High Court rsquo s decision is directly on this point and this judgment prevails. Secondly, the Supreme Court rsquo s finding was given in relation to a particular set of facts in respect of Tyre Cord and not on cotton yarn. We may also add that at this moment, the Supreme Court recalled its Judgment in M.R.F. and, therefore, in any event, the ratio is not available for application here. 11. Admittedly, the mills did not file any appeal against the Order of the Assistant Collector passed on 7-6-1977. To this extent, that order is sustainable and, therefore, the mills have to pay the duty w.e.f. 3-5-1977. 12. To this extent, we allow the appeal filed by the Mills (Appeal No. 3314/88D), The same findings apply to the appeal filed by the Revenue (A.No. 3341/88D), which appeal is, for the same reason, dismissed.
-
1989 (7) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... is not applicable inter alia to goods falling under the said Tariff Headings 87.02 or 87.04. 3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We agree with the pleas of the learned Counsels for the appellants that the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court squarely applies to the facts and issues involved in these appeals. The argument of the learned DR regarding the Government rsquo s intention flowing from Notification 248/87 dated 4-11-1987 is not a valid plea. In view of the clear pronouncement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case mentioned above. Following respectfully the ratio in the aforesaid case, we allow these appeals and direct that the bodies built by the appellants on the motor vehicle chassis should be taken to fall under Tariff Heading 87.07 and if the Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 is otherwise applicable, should be extended to them. Consequential relief, if any, be extended to them. 4. Appeals disposed of accordingly.
........
|
