|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 219 Records
-
1990 (6) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... g to this Chapter Note 1, Borate subjected to the process of crystallization will not be classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Tariff. The test report incorporated on the reverse of the Bill of Entry does not indicate that the borate concentrate has undergone the process of crystallization. The test reports read as follows - (i) On the reverse of Bill of Entry in Appeal No. C/2142/88-C - ldquo The sample is in the form of white coarse powder. It is sodium borate containing water insoluble matter (Silica). rdquo (ii) As stated in the findings of Assistant Collector in Appeal No. C/186/89-C ldquo The sample is in the form of dull white granular powder. It is mainly composed of sodium borate and small amount of silicious matter. rdquo The imported goods in dispute are classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Tariff with the benefit of Notification No. 147/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. 10. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... cisable goods rdquo . But the principle of the judgment was that though the goods in question were manufactured during the period when they did not attract excise duty because of the nil duty entry in the tariff schedule, they attracted duty when they were cleared after the nil rate was substituted by 15 ad valorem rate. In the present case, it is not as though no special excise duty was in force when the goods were manufactured (although Shri Iyer and Shri Ignatius have contended that the 1988 levy of SED was not in force) but, as we have discussed earlier, there was in pith and substance no difference in character between this levy and the levy of SED by the 1987 Finance Act. Therefore, in our opinion, when the goods were cleared on or after 1-3-1988 the special excise duty authorised by the 1988 Finance Bill was correctly charged. 10. In this view of the matter, and following the previous decisions of this Tribunal, we set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals.
-
1990 (6) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Abbalide - Perfumery ... ... ... ... ..... This is not so in the present case. The subject product, as noted earlier, has only one odoriferous substance present in it. Thus, this requirement in the heading is also not satisfied. It is also to be noted that it is not the Department rsquo s case that diethyl phthalate is an alcohol. The question of considering the product as an alcoholic solution does not, therefore, arise. 15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, Heading No. 33.02 is not appropriate. The product falls under Chapter 29. However, this Chapter contains innumerable headings and sub-headings and we consider it only appropriate that the lower authorities should look into the question of classifying this product under the most appropriate heading or sub-heading within this Chapter. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Asstt. Collector for examining the question of classification of the product under Chapter 29 after giving both sides due opportunity of representation.
-
1990 (6) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Spare parts for Goss Headliner ... ... ... ... ..... g paper pulp or paper or paperboard. Stereo Flong are classifiable under Heading 48.01/21 of the Customs Tariff as paperboard. Under these circumstances the classification of Mat Trimmer under Heading 84.33 cannot be assailed. 15. As regards Bundle Tiers it was contended that the goods should have been classified under Heading 84.35 and not under Heading 84.19 CTA as done by the department because Bundle Tiers is an ancillary to the main printing machine imported. It was stressed that Bundle Tiers are machines which are used for bundling papers and tying them with twins and therefore it is not a packing or wrapping machine. We do not agree. Heading 84.19 of the Customs Tariff covers other packing or wrapping machinery. Thus, the scope of Heading 84.19 is wide enough to cover the bundle tiers which is in the nature of a wrapping machine. Hence we reject the contention raised by the learned Consultant. 16. In view of the above we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1990 (6) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... excise as well as to facilitate the department in not frittering away its energy on collection of small amounts of duty from small manufacturer, avoiding thereby unnecessary addition to cost of collection of duty. It is in the context of the scheme of compounded levy on cotton fabric that one powerloom has been equated with one roller-locking machine of one metre width for the purpose of quantum of production of fabric. There is no intention, nor can there be any to that effect, to say that roller locking machine is the same thing as powerloom. 10.3. Similarly the second argument, namely, Section Note 12(f) in Section XI does not decide the question of classification of the lsquo net fabric rsquo - whether in Chapter 52 or in Chapter 58 - because that Section Note is applicable, inter alia, to both Chapter 52 and Chapter 58. Section XI of the Central Excise Tariff, as already mentioned, comprises Chapter 50 to 63. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion we reject the appeal.
-
1990 (6) TMI 141 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT Credit ... ... ... ... ..... o plea from the Revenue that in terms of any specific rule, such a point of time has been fixed. In the absence of that we have to hold that the benefit of credit in terms of Rule 57A can be allowed irrespective of the fact whether the duty on the goods was paid before the receipt of the same in the appellants rsquo Unit or afterwards. We, however, as mentioned earlier in the absence of the fact as to when the appellants filed the declaration under Rule 57G and whether they satisfy other requirements of the rules for MODVAT credit, cannot give our findings as to whether the appellants are otherwise eligible to take the credit in respect of the inputs in question. 6. In view of the above, we while holding that the payment of duty after receipt of the goods in the appellants rsquo Unit is no bar for consideration of the MODVAT relief, we remand the matter to the learned original authority for de novo consideration of the appellants rsquo plea in the light of our findings above.
-
1990 (6) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... rial is bound on plastic cones contained in cellophane bags/envelops and on these cellophane covering the emblem of Andaria is printed and the word thread is also mentioned and cardboard cartons also show that they are of Gunze Andaria Sewing Thread. In the circumstances the learned Collector (Appeals) is correct in holding that the goods in question are cones of sewing thread and not of yarn. The learned Collector (Appeals) had also observed that the vouchers produced before him show that the goods had been purchased in the normal course from the market and the respondents had taken sufficient precaution. In view of the above facts and circumstances I find that the submissions of the respondents are correct in their entirety and the department rsquo s case was misconceived. The order of the Collector (Appeals) was correct both on facts and in law. As such it is confirmed and the department rsquo s appeal is rejected. The department is directed to release the goods forthwith.
-
1990 (6) TMI 139 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... iling the appeal at a delayed date. 7. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer v. Katijabi the Supreme Court held that, when technical considerations are pitted against justice, justice should prevail. In that case the delay was two days and in those circumstances, those observations were made in that case. The Supreme Court held that the delay should be explained satisfactorily. 8. In this case as per the first date-sheet submitted by the applicant, it is abundantly clear that the impugned order copy was obtained by them in November, 1987 from their clearing agents. After getting the order copy in November, 1987 they did not initiate proceedings for filing the appeal. Instead, they entered into correspondence with the Collector and Central Board. This, in our opinion, is not a sufficient cause to condone delay from 1987 November, till 3-1-1989 which is the date of filing this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the application and consequently, this appeal also stands dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ar as the present case is concerned, since the goods had been manifested in the name of the appellants and consigned to them, therefore, there was some probability that the goods were meant to be delivered to the appellants. However, at the same time the appellant had not retired the documents and the department had not cared to verify the correctness of their statement that no payment had been made. Therefore, the matter was in any eventuality not free from doubt and the benefit of doubt goes to the appellants. 21. Since the appellants have not claimed the goods and have not contested their confiscation, therefore, we need not enter into the merits of the case in so far as it relates to the question of confiscation. 22. However, so far as the question of penalty is concerned in view of the above discussion we consider that the same was not called for in the circumstances of the case. We, therefore, set aside the same. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed as such.
-
1990 (6) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Withdrawal of approval is not without jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... regards the demand of duty we find substantial force in the plea of the learned advocate. On a perusal of the show cause notice dated 20-1-1981 read with corrigendum dated 9-8-1983 we find that the respondents have not been asked to show cause against the demand of duty for the six months prior to the issue of the show cause. Accordingly, no demand of duty can be made as has been by the Assistant Collector in the order-in-original. The demand of duty is, therefore, set aside. While doing so, we rely on para 4 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Madhumilan supra. 6. In sum, the matter is remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for deciding the case on merits so far as the question of reclassification is concerned. The demand of duty is, however, set aside. 7. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 8. Cross-objections are not maintainable because the respondents had got complete relief by the impugned order. Therefore, the cross-objections are dismissed as infructuous.
-
1990 (6) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Siporex Broken - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... vations made in respect of siporex aggregate and siporex powder do not apply to this commodity. It is a waste and cannot be termed as manufactured goods liable to excise duty. 16. While coming to these conclusions we have kept in mind the ratio of various judgments cited by the learned DR. These include Hindustan Scientific Glass and Fancy Glass Ware Works, Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works and Another, etc. v. Union of India and Others, Modi Rubber (with the reservations expressed by Shri Chakraborty) and the 4 judgments which held that bagasse, cotton waste, polyester waste excisable. 17. We find no need to go into the details of these judgments as none of them dealt with the product in question and we have kept the ratio of the judgments in mind to apply them to the facts of the present matter to the extent relevant and possible. 18. In the result we allow the appeal in respect of siporex waste, and reject the appeal in respect of siporex aggregate and siporex broken.
-
1990 (6) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... in the wet condition in which it is produced to be bought and sold. In fact being violently reactive the wet chlorine in question will attack steel pipes or metal containers if stored as such. Government have decided that sniff gas is not considered to be falling within the ambit, of Item 14H of the CET as it stood at the relevant time. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the DCM case, the lsquo wet chlorine rsquo in question does not fulfil the requirements of being lsquo goods rsquo within the meaning of Section 3 ibid. rdquo We follow the judgment of the Govt. of India and are of the view on the basis of the evidence available on record that wet chlorine cannot be categorised as goods and does not fall under the purview of Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly we confirm the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. We do not find any merit in the revenue rsquo s 13 appeals. The appeals are dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... it has an inlet and an outlet. The inlet receives low pressure oxygen gas from the oxygen plant and oxygen vented from the liquid oxygen storage tank and from transport tankers. The outlet is connected to the oxygen compressor. The appellants rsquo contention that the balloon is not a mere storage tank but that it has a definite role to play in the plant - preventing the development of vacuum conditions in the plant with likely damage to it if the compressor were to be directly attached to the oxygen plant - remains unrebutted. 9. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the subject balloon falls for classification under Heading 59.11 (Sub-heading 5911.90) and not under Heading 40.16 (Sub-heading 4016.99). 10. In the above view, it is not necessary for us to consider the counsel rsquo s alternative claim for classification of the goods in Chapter 84. 11. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (6) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay - Pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nds at present. So, we humbly believe that in view of the law laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, the appellant has to pre-deposit the amount of penalty before the appeal can be heard on merits. From perusal of the judgment in Hussain Haji Harun alias Hussein Kabiju case (supra), it appears that judgment in Navin Chancier Chhotelal (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Hon rsquo ble High Court. 14. Here, the appellant has failed to deposit. The appellant also does not pray for time, to deposit the amount of penalty. There is no specific provision in Sec. 129E that in the case where the appellant fails to pre-deposit the amount of penalty, the appeal should be dismissed, but in case of Navin Chander Chhotelal (supra), Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has held that in such an eventuality, the appellate authority can dismiss the appeal. So, we pass the following final order 15. The appeal stands dismissed for failure of the appellant to deposit the amount of penalty.
-
1990 (6) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the technical information sheet on the product, as we have noted, shows that it is an aqueous suspension containing Ti02 (Rutile). The Customs Laboratory says that the product is a white pasty mass (the information sheet also says so) but does not seem to have tested the Ti02 for its crystalline structure. The product must, therefore, be taken to be only Ti02 (Rutile) in suspension, in a form which admits of easier and improved use of Ti02. In this view of the matter, the reliance placed by the D.R. on the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 375 to the effect that the CCCN code given against various serial numbers in the ITC Policy is merely to facilitate collection of data and not as a guidance for interpreting the scope of the entries in the ITC Policy, is of no assistance to the Revenue. 6. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (6) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ctured after the amendment of the tariff and Insertion of Item 25(15) in the Central Excise Tariff will not be classifiable under that item because of its restrictive scope, as already pointed out above, and because the stepped electrical poles have definite design and are made up into poles for electric lighting/transmission and cannot be considered as pipes and tubes as such, covered by the scope of the item as indicated in the Explanatory Note to Heading 73.18. The goods will correctly fall under Tariff Item 68-CET. It is held accordingly. As regards the time bar, the demand would be valid only for the period of 6 months prior to the receipt of the show cause notice by the appellants, as contended by the appellants, as the case will be covered by the relevant date on which the duty is to be paid as given in sub-para (c) of para (ii) defining relevant date for the purpose of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1990 (6) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... documents were returned to the negotiating bank in New York. 13. Further the appellants have not filed any Bill of Entry and have not claimed the goods and have not come forward to clear them. As a result of the actions and inactions on the part of the appellants/suppliers the goods have in effect become abandoned goods, and the Law could take its own course in respect thereof. We are in the circumstances not called upon to pass any order on merits of confiscation at this stage. 14. In so far as the liability of the appellants to penalty is concerned, in view of the above facts and circumstances we consider that although the appellants had placed the orders they had apparently taken necessary precautions and neither retired the documents nor made any attempt to claim or clear the goods. This apart, the department has not been able to show that there is any misdeclaration on their part. As such we set aside the penalty and accept the appeal as already announced in open Court.
-
1990 (6) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show Cause Notice - Service of notice ... ... ... ... ..... of the Collectorate and this was justified in the above circumstances and amounted to proper service in terms of Section 153(b) which allow service by affixing on the notice board of the Custom House to which the Collectorate are responsible. 27. In view of the above factual and legal position I hold that the notice was duly served on the appellant. 28. As such I hold that the learned Collector (Appeals) has erred in this respect. As regards the merits of the case I find that it has not been properly examined in as much as the show cause notice refers to Section 123 as well as various sections of Chapter IV but the learned Collector (Appeals) has merely made his observations with reference to Section 11(B). Further the order of the Collector (Appeals) is rather vague. Therefore I set aside the impugned order in appeal and remand the matter to the learned Additional Collector (Appeals) with the direction that he should reconsider the matter on merits and pass a speaking order.
-
1990 (6) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to Tractors Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Appeals) reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 494 (S.C.) had held that where an importer has claimed the benefit of notification under a particular notification and subsequently he makes a claim the same has to be extended. In the matter before us the only difference is that the respondents had claimed benefit of notification of Sl. No. 1 of Notification No. 206/76-Cus. whereas the Collector (Appeals) had granted the benefit of Sl. No. 4 of Notification No. 206/76-Cus. We are fully satisfied that the imported items are fully covered by the Sl. No. 4, military stores, accordingly we do not find any merits in the appeals. The same are dismissed. rdquo We are of the view that the goods are of general description lsquo military stores rsquo at Serial No. 4 of Notification No. 206/76-Cus. We follow the earlier judgment of the Tribunal and hold that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 206/76-Cus. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
rate of duty and valuation ... ... ... ... ..... reported in AIR 1969 S.C. 430 had held that Tribunal has got inherent powers. Relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced below - ldquo An express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. The powers which have been conferred by Section 254 on the Appellate Tribunal with widest possible amplitude must carry with them by necessary implication all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective. rdquo 5. The miscellaneous order against which the applicants have come in reference application before the Tribunal is an interim order and it cannot be said that the Tribunal had disposed of the appeal finally. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we hold that no reference application is maintainable from Miscellaneous Order No. 8/89-A, dated 24th January, 1989. Accordingly, we decline to refer the matter to the High Court.
........
|
