|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 305 Records
-
1994 (12) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the Customs Tariff Act where a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be a price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation. Such price shall be calculated with reference to rate of exchange as in force on the date on which the bill of entry is presented. Hence the Department was justified in including the freight charges. Since the actual freight charges are available the Department was not correct in adding the notional value in the absence of evidence brought on record to show that special concession was granted to the appellants. Accordingly we hold that the car is to be re-assessed after allowing trade discount at 15 and depreciation for 4 quarters and further the actual freight charges incurred by the appellant is to be added to the CIF value in arriving at the assessable value. This appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1994 (12) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ied on the bill of entry that he has not taken any credit of duty in respect the goods covered by the bill of entry. By various decisions of this Tribunal 1989 (42) E.L.T. 417, 1990 (48) E.L.T. 299 (Tribunal) 1990 (30) E.C.R. 217 and 1990 (47) E.L.T. 292 (Tribunal) 1990 (31) E.C.R. 111 , it has been held that where the inputs have been actually received and utilised by the assessee credit cannot be refused on the ground that some procedures were not followed. It is not in question that the appellant received the goods, or is otherwise not entitled to modvat credit on duty paid on them. The goods having reached the appellant rsquo s company accompanied by a bill of entry, the requirement of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules is therefore satisfied. In the circumstances, we are of the view that credit should not be denied merely because the appellant has not satisfied a procedural condition imposed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 228 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI Exemption - Unit not having SSI certificate ... ... ... ... ..... is more than Rs. 7.5 lakhs the benefit would not be available. So far as para 4(b) is concerned once a person has taken advantage of para 4(a) he cannot, in our view, claim the benefit under para 4(b) as para 4(b) covers a separate contingency and the appellant cannot be taken to be falling under the scope of para 4(b) as they cannot be said to be covered by any one of the notifications, as held by the learned lower authority. No doubt in para 4(b) it is stated that a person who had been availing of the benefit of the exemption under this Notification (175/86) he also will be eligible for the benefit of the Notification 175/86, but that would be to cover such of those assessees who availed the benefit of Notification, with the SSI unit certificate and which for some reason may not have remained valid with a view to give them time to get a fresh certificate. In view of the above we find no force in the plea of the learned Consultant for the appellants and dismiss the appeals.
-
1994 (12) TMI 227 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... customs he heard some noise that he saw Sesha alone standing at the northern side that Sesha did not answer satisfactorily and accordingly he (Sesha) went away rdquo As it is, in this statement there is nothing against the appellant though he was present in the shed. I observe that so far as Sh. Sesha is concerned, inasmuch as the statement of Shri Krishna Raj only implicated him and he has given him a clean chit by stating that what he had stated earlier was not correct. The learned DR has also not pointed out any other piece of evidence which implicates Shri Sesha. 8. emsp Taking into consideration his nature of the duties and the level at which he operated and also that in the whole episode the godown keeper and the clearing agent rsquo s representative were present and the appellant rsquo s plea that he was only opening the package as required, the benefit of doubt has to be given to Shri Sesha. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of levy of penalty on him.
-
1994 (12) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Mutuality of interest ... ... ... ... ..... e and other rights granted as per Agreement cannot be attributable to price of imported goods and the Tribunal found that such terms for payment of royalty are commonly made in such agreements in order to compensate the collaborator by way of larger payments on account of royalty due to increasing indigenisation leading to decreasing realisations to the collaborator through the sale of parts and components to the Indian importer. The later decision of the Tribunal in the case of Asahi India Safety Glass (Supra) had also followed Maruti Udyog decision and Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra to hold that valuation in such cases has to be under Section 14(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962. In the face of such consistent findings in the decisions of the High Court and Tribunal as endorsed by the Supreme Court, the ratio of which has been rightly followed by the Collector (Appeals), we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (12) TMI 225 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ents that the quantity imported by them was either lost or destroyed. In such a situation the question of invoking Section 23 for giving relief to the respondents would not arise in the context of admitted facts and the evidence available on record. It is well settled that if a finding is given which is not based either on the evidence available or if the finding is inconsistent with the evidence, a question of law would arise meriting reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. In this view of the matter I hold that the impugned order gives rise to the following question of law - ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of evidence available on record the finding of the Tribunal giving relief to the respondents under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is correct and whether Section 23(1) at all is invokable? rdquo 4. emsp The above question of law is referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court in terms of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
1994 (12) TMI 224 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat credit utilised for payment of duty on certain final products not shown in the declaration
-
1994 (12) TMI 223 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... s scrap of iron and steel. In principle, we agree with the plea of the Revenue that the deemed Modvat credit would not be available in respect of the machinery parts. As the details of the so-called machinery parts have not been furnished and unless that can be done and it can be shown that some of the items could be considered as iron and steel structures falling under Tariff Heading 72 or 73 and which are capable of re-rolling, only then the Modvat credit can be considered for these items. In view of the above, we hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s orders allowing Modvat credit to the machinery parts are concerned is not a proper one, and in the absence of the description of the input items as mentioned above we are therefore constrained to remand the matter to the learned original authority for de novo consideration of the appellant rsquo s plea for deemed Modvat credit in the light of the above observations. The appeal is therefore, disposed of the above terms.
-
1994 (12) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ld be varied upwards corresponding to the subsequent recovery of more duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of final products when rule 57E at the material time only provided for variation of credit consequent to payment of refund on the inputs. 2. emsp Whether such upward variation of credit could be allowed as Rule 57A being the authority for taking Modvat Credit could override the provisions of Rule 57E. 3. Whether the notifications amending Rule 57E on 1-3-1987 and on 15-4-1987 were clarificatory in nature and could be given retrospective effect from 1-3-1986 onwards. The questions have been placed before both the sides when they agreed that these questions may be referred to the Honourable High Court. We accordingly refer the above mentioned questions of law to the Honourable High Court of Delhi for their valued opinion in terms of Section 35G of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Registry is accordingly directed to send a copy of this with the required enclosures.
-
1994 (12) TMI 221 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stock verification - Shortage and excess in stock ... ... ... ... ..... en the Deputy Collector has accepted that there is no mala fide in this case and he refers to the observation of the Dy. Collector in this regard. He would therefore plead for leniency with regard to the redemption fine. He would also plead that the penalty should be set aside. 3. emsp After hearing both the sides, since the duty payment is not challenged and the factual position regarding the alleged excess and shortage is not contested, the findings of the lower authority confirming the demand and the liability of the excess goods to confiscation is required to be confirmed. However, I find that the appellants are a major unit having a huge stock and the possibility for improper accounting cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, accepting the prayer for leniency, I reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I remit the penalty with a warning that they should maintain the record properly in future.
-
1994 (12) TMI 220 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Confiscation - Absolute confiscation of gold ... ... ... ... ..... t abroad. Inasmuch as the gold jewellery was not declared and the appellant was coming after a short visit abroad, it is not understandable as to why he would bring gold jewellery with him which is not permissible to be imported under the Baggage Rules. The commercial nature of the goods, namely 32 nos. of calculators, 4 nos. of walkman and 40 nos. of pen torches also shows that the appellant rsquo s visit was to bring contraband goods along with other baggage goods. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order of absolutely confiscating the gold jewellery is maintainable in law and therefore upheld. However, since gold jewellery has been absolutely confiscated and taking into consideration the value of the goods involved, I hold that ends of justice would be served if the penalty levied is reduced to Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand) and I order accordingly. But for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... erence application. Undoubtedly there is no limitation for filing the writ petition as held by the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bahadursingh reported in 1983 (3) ECR 1556 D(SC). We have duly looked into the other judgments cited by ld. Advocate. In this case Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court has not condoned any delay but has left it to the discretion of the Tribunal. We do not have any discretion to condone the delay. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 4. emsp Since we have dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing Reference application, the Reference application is also dismissed being hit by limitation and we are not going into the merits of the same including the questions of law proposed by the appellants in the Reference application. 5.n the result, the application for condonation of delay as well as Reference application are rejected. 6.Let this order be sent for publication.
-
1994 (12) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... of issue in question. For the purpose of convenience the circular issued by the Board reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. - T22-23 is given below - 9. emsp Since the above clarification has bearing on the issue to be decided and will have overall implication on the assessee manufacturer, we are inclined that the matter should go to the original authority as Revenue rsquo s contended by Ld. DR. In view of the matter we set aside the impugned order appealed against and all the appeals are remitted to the Central Excise, New Delhi for reconsideration of the issue by Deputy Collector in the light of our observations above and also in the light of clarification of the Board cited above. This is open to the parties to put forward all the pleas and rely upon any order-in-law. The appeals stand remanded to the Collector/Deputy Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. We note that in order to avoid possible conflict of view, the same adjudicating authority should decide all the five appeals.
-
1994 (12) TMI 217 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I am inclined to agree with the learned JDR Shri S.N. Ghosh and particularly the reasoning given in the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of Sarada Service Corporation (supra). Notification 175/86, in my view, does not at all apply to subject excise duty. It applies only to basic excise duty in view of the preamble to the said Notification invoking the powers under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 while issuing the said Notification. The preamble does not invoke the powers under the Finance Act, 1988 and, therefore, the said Notification, in my view, does not grant the exemption in respect of special excise duty. Therefore, the question of giving higher notional credit in terms of para 5 of the Notification does not apply to special excise duties at all. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any substance in the contentions of the Appellants. Accordingly, I dismiss the Appeal.
-
1994 (12) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat - Departmental Clarification ... ... ... ... ..... enefit. If, however, the Govt. rsquo s intention is to deny the benefit of Modvat in regard to such clearances under Rule 191BB read with DEEC scheme, there is a need to make necessary amendment in Rules 57C and 57F(3) proviso and the same cannot be effected merely on the basis of executive instructions. 8. emsp Moreover, if the Govt. rsquo s intention is to confer the availment of benefit of Modvat in regard to removals effected under Rule 191BB only on the actual exporter and not on the manufacturer of final product, proviso to Rule 57F(3) conferring the benefit only on the manufacturer has to be changed as manufacturer exporter rsquo who not only produces but also exports the goods. As the rules stand, denial of the modvat benefit to the manufacturer, whose final products are cleared in terms of Rule 191BB or 191B, cannot be legally justified. 9. emsp In the result, we allow the appeal with direction to the authorities to restore the credit sought to be disallowed by them.
-
1994 (12) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... could not be allowed as at the time the request for such cross examination was made Shri Ahuja had expired and Shri Ghowri had absconded and was not available. 3. As per the direction of the Honourable High Court of Delhi vide their order dated 11-7-1994 in Customs Act case No. 2/94, the following questions of law are referred to the Honourable Court with the above statement of the case - 1. emsp Whether it is correct position in law for the Tribunal to hold in the facts and circumstances of the case that abetment to smuggling under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act can be concluded without establishing any relation to the offending goods? 2. emsp Whether the Tribunal is correct in law to hold in the facts and circumstances of the case that oral evidence of the main accused, without opportunity of cross examination under Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act is reliable for conclusion of abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act insofar as the co-accused is concerned?
-
1994 (12) TMI 214 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... anufacture in form IV Register. Extracts thereof had been submitted by them along with the monthly returns submitted by them, as stated by them. Following the Tribunal decision in the case cited by the learned counsel, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by remand of the matter to the Assistant Collector to examine their request for the benefit under Rule 57H(1) on merits. All the requirements under the said rule as in force during the relevant period should be examined from the data of receipts and issues of the inputs submitted by them in the form of periodical returns and Registers maintained by them during the material time. The requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 57H that no credit of duty paid on the inputs on or before 31-1-1986 would be allowable except where credit of duty on such inputs was allowable under any Rule or Notification prior to 1-3-1986 when used in the final products should also be kept in mind. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
-
1994 (12) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MODVAT Credit - Credit initially availed of by assessee ... ... ... ... ..... precondition for availing the said benefit constituted cogent reason for making a departure from the fundamental rule of natural justice. It could also be said that their consent to pay back the credit which was not under any pressure or coercion but given by them to qualify for an alternative and more beneficial arrangement of full exemption constituted a waiver of a notice. The reversal of paying back of the credit taken by them was not a unilateral step taken by the department against their claim to the contrary but was only to give effect to their own request for availing full exemption the condition for which, as per the relevant Exemption Notification, was non-availment of credit. Having got the said benefit it is not open to them to go back on their offer to pay back the credit taken and raise the question of show cause notice as they had done. Their plea has been rightly rejected by the Collector (Appeals). We entirely agree with his decision. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Notional higher credit ... ... ... ... ..... al Excises Rules simpliciter, without reference to provisions of other statements, has granted higher credit only in respect of basic excise duty. 8. The learned Advocate also submitted that earlier Order of Tribunal referred to para-2 are sub-silentio. 8.2 emsp A decision sub-silentio however is one where particular points of law involve in the decision is not perceived by the Court or present to its mind. A proposition of law, implicit in a decision, when not expressly stated in argument or judgment, makes the decision sub-silentio. That, however, is not the position here as would be obvious from the portion of the extracted earlier from the Tribunal Order in case of Sarda Service Corporation (supra). 8.3 emsp Since however I have independently arrived at the same conclusion, I do not consider it necessary to expatiate any further on the doctrine of sub-silentio. 9. In the result, for the reasons set out hereinbefore, the Appeal is rejected and the impugned Order is upheld.
-
1994 (12) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... lectrical insulation properties or not, and thereafter determine the classification under Tariff Heading 8546.00 or 3920.31. 3. We have heard Shri P.R. Sitharaman, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri V.C. Bhartiya, ld. JDR for the respondents. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we are of the view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the ld. Collector remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector with the said direction. The reason being that as per the documents filed before the Tribunal by the appellants pertaining to classification list, it is seen that the classification list had been approved without drawing samples and testing the goods. Therefore, the order of the ld. Collector for setting aside the order-in original and giving the direction to draw the samples and to get it tested is a correct order. 5. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merits in the appeal and we dismiss the same.
........
|
