|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 448 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... he business of the respondents and the finding of the Madras High Court support the view that the imported staplers are used as contemplated by the two Notifications. 15. emsp We would like to observe that staplers or any other machines could be stationery articles or other items and at the same time also be packing machines or case packing machines. The Notifications do not say that the goods should not be office machines or stationery articles or that they should not fall under any heading of the CTA other than Heading 84.19. The goods involved in these appeals are an example where some of them can be considered as office machines or stationery articles and are at the same time lsquo packing machines rsquo also (or lsquo case packing machines rsquo as the case may be). The Notifications only prescribe that the goods should be falling under Chapter 84 CTA and should be case packing machines or packing machines. That is satisfied in this case. 16. emsp We dismiss the appeals.
-
1987 (7) TMI 447 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ing does not appear to be acceptable. 6. ensp Smt. Saxena contended that if the product would not be a carpet it would at least be carpeting, since it is manufactured in running lengths, as rolls. But even if it is manufactured in running lengths the question would be whether it would be carpeting as a floor covering or at least having the characteristics of a floor covering. For the reasons stated earlier we are not satisfied that it would be so. 7. ensp There is no dispute that the product was being classified under Item 22-A. The case for the Department is that after Item 22-G was introduced in the Schedule the product moved outside Item 22-A and moved into Item 22-G. For the reasons stated earlier we are unable to accept this contention. The result would be that the product would continue under Item 22-A itself and there would be no question of the same falling under Item 68 CET. 8. ensp In the result we confirm the order of the Appellate Collector and dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 446 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Chemical - ‘Desmodur R’ ... ... ... ... ..... e it cannot be considered to be a chemical having exclusive use in the manufacturing of ammunition. 2. ensp The appellants claim that the imported stores, a chemical is used exclusively for the manufacture of ammunition. A certificate dated 18-4-1983 given by the officer-in-charge is to the effect that the imported chemical was being used for manufacture of ammunition, for defence production purpose. Besides, we feel that for the purpose of Notification No. 206/76, it is necessary that the imported chemical is used in ammunition but it is not necessary that it should be exclusively so used. Our view is also the view of the Ministry of Finance who in a instruction dated 18-1-1973 advised the Collectors that the ammunition chemicals are those chemicals which have uses in ammunition. 3. ensp We, therefore, hold that imported chemicals having been used in the manufacturing of ammunition, they are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 206/76. Accordingly we allow the appeal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 445 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... o. 23A(4) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. He made it clear that he was not seeking relief in terms of notification No. 222/79, which, as the Appellate Collector has noted in his order, was issued subsequent to the importation of the goods in the present appeal. Shri Venkataraman fairly stated that the issue had already been decided by the Tribunal in Order No. 466-483/86-D dated 1-7-1986 in the case of Gopal Krishna Brothers and Ors., the decision being that such goods fell for classification under item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. As such, Shri Venkataraman did not submit any other arguments. 3. emsp In view of the previous decision of this Tribunal cited by the counsel for the appellants, the present goods were liable to be charged to additional duty of customs corresponding to the duty of excise leviable under item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 444 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ould cover laminated textile fabrics, unless they are specifically covered elsewhere. The product in issue is undoubtedly jute fabric laminated with PVC. It would therefore be normally a laminated jute fabric. Item 22-A would cover jute manufactures unless they are covered elsewhere. Since laminated jute fabrics would be covered normally by Item 22-B it will have to be excluded from Item 22-A. The reliance on Notification No. 53/65 as amendment by Notification No. 150/65, is of no effect since, as already seen, the said notification had been issued when Item 22-B was not even in the Schedule and, therefore, as matters then stood the laminated jute fabric may have fallen under Item 22-A. But once Item 22-B was introduced and later amended to include laminated textile fabrics there could be no doubt that the product in issue (PVC laminated jute fabric) would fall under Item 22-B. 7. ensp In the circumstances we uphold the orders of the lower authorities and dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 443 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Reward of personal hearing ... ... ... ... ..... into consideration the facts stated in the request for adjournment, and the ground for the adjournment sought for, we are satisfied that the Collector did not act properly in having declined the adjournment. In any event the appellants had applied for adjournment sufficiently in time and if the Collector was not inclined to grant the adjournment he should have at least intimated to the appellants in this regard, leaving it open to the appellants to attend the hearing or not. Since the Collector had not done even this it appears to us that the Collector was in error to adjudicate in the absence of the appellants as he did. We are therefore satisfied even so far as these appellants are concerned the order of the Collector is to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Collector for re-adjudication. 12. ensp In the result both appeals are allowed and order of the Collector set aside, the matter being remitted to the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut for adjudication afresh.
-
1987 (7) TMI 442 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Job work - Use of some own material by jober ... ... ... ... ..... Union Carbide. But, the merits of this dispute cannot be investigated since the demand is a afflicted by a serious malady mdash malady that destroys it. 11. emsp The department appeal said there was suppression of facts by the company to avoid payment of duty. But the Assistant Collector does not say so and he arrives at no findings that suppression caused the loss of duty. And the testimony of this is the absence of any chastisement in the shape of a penalty as I expect to be meted out whenever any person deceives the custodians of the law to make wrongful gain for himself. I am not able to accept a report of suppression or deception if the adjudicator under Central Excise Law does not administer the law rsquo s corrective to warn the trespasser for the future unless, the course, there are good reasons for not doing so. There is no reason here, leave alone a good one. Therefore, it is clear there was no suppression. The demand is time barred and I pronounce it unenforceable.
-
1987 (7) TMI 441 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Coal Briquettes produced from coal dust does not involve any manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... terial does not result in production of a new commodity. And even if it is so the entry is wide enough to cover in its fold commodities which remain the same despite change in shape. Coke briquettes thus being only a preparation of coke dust are covered by the expression lsquo coke in all its form rsquo . 16. emsp For the purpose of deciding this appeal we need not go into the implication of the difference between coke and coal. Such differences are immaterial as the question involved relates to the existence of manufacture and not to the difference between these two commodities. The ratio of the High Court rsquo s order is clear enough. The ratio of the several other judgments we have discussed earlier is in line with the High Court rsquo s judgment. In view of this, we accept the Appellants rsquo arguments and hold that there is no manufacture involved and that a new commodity does not emerge when coal dust is converted into coal briquettes. We, therefore, allow the appeal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 440 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... law does not say that excisable goods is not excisable if it is fixed to the earth. Weighbridges, in fact, unlike these poles are, so to speak, born in the earth or grow out of the earth. They are completed only when all components and parts have been fixed to the earth or to other parts fixed to the earth. They are items decreed by law to suffer excise duty and so they do. Nobody protests that they are not excisable as they are fixed to earth. 4. ensp The poles, told the learned counsel, are used in the factory in which they are manufactured. If there is one place where the poles cannot be used, it is the place where they are manufactured. The things are to be found in town and country, in hills and valleys - everywhere but in the factory that manufactured them. And for a very simple reason - the factory or unit does not require these poles. Nor can we see the rollings downs, or the streets of a city as factories in which these poles are made. 5. ensp The appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (7) TMI 439 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... clarified under the said letter that the expression shapes and sections would exclude items which had assumed the character of any specified article. It had therefore been clarified that the words shapes and sections under Item 27(b) will not cover articles of aluminium like Jars, Rings, Spoons etc. though they may have been manufacturers of aluminium. 4. ensp It is therefore clear that though the rivets may have been formed by the die-forging process, they would not fall within the expression shapes and sections not otherwise specified since these rivets are distinctly known products having their own specific name. 5. ensp We therefore hold that the Collector (Appeals) was correct in holding that the rivets were properly classifiable under Item 68 CET during the relevant period and not under Item 26-AA(ia). As earlier mentioned this appeal is only with reference to the order of the Collector relating to rivets. In view of our conclusion above noted this appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 85 Vol. 22 E.L.T. 3). The Supreme Court had observed therein (in paragraph 3) as follows (i) ldquo A mere reference to tariff item No. 15A(2) would show that the articles therein described are plastic material in different shape and form and not articles made from such plastic material. rdquo (ii) ldquo Articles made of plastic mean articles made wholly of commodity commercially known as plastic and not articles made from plastics along with other materials. rdquo The Supreme Court in their decision held that the plastic torch in issue in that case was not classifiable under item 15A(2) CET since it was not wholly made of plastic but had non-plastic components also. 5. emsp In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court there can be no doubt that the product in issue in this appeal, which consisted of 28 plastic and 72 non-plastic materials, was properly classified under Tariff Item 68 CET and was not classifiable under item 15A(2). 6. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 437 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Rubber and General Industry, Bombay, disposed of by order No. 373/87-D, dated 11-5-1987. After a detailed consideration of all aspects of the matter, it was held that such a product would fall under Item No. 16-A(2) of the Tariff Schedule. This decision followed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Falcon Tyres -1985 (21) E.L.T. 786 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory -1985 (22) E.L.T. 5. While Smt. Saxena reiterates the grounds set forth in the memo of appeal, Shri Lakshmikumaran, Advocate for the respondent relies on the aforesaid decisions and prays that the appeals be dismissed. 4. ensp Having considered the submissions of both sides, we do not see any reason to depart from the earlier decision which was on a similar product. Accordingly, we hold that the subject goods also fall for classification under Item No. 16-A(2) of the Tariff Schedule. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss both the appeals.
-
1987 (7) TMI 418 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... resaid order the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. A notice of hearing was issued to the appellant. The appellant vide his letter dated 2-5-1987 intimated that the matter may be decided on the basis of their written submissions. 4. Shri D.K. Saha, ld. JDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, states that the appellant rsquo s case is covered by the judgment in the case of Venkateshwara Stainless Steel and Wire Industries, Madras v. Union of India and Another reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 201 (Mad.). He has pleaded that in view of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the records. We have also gone through the judgment cited by the learned JDR. We very respectfully follow the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court. Accordingly we hold that the imported goods fall under Heading 73.15(2) of CTA, 1975. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 417 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... enter Industrial Sewing Machine. 4. Sh. D.K. Saha, learned JDR submitted that he reiterates the contents of the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The question is whether or not the imported goods can be considered to be the parts of a Sewing Machine which is not domestic. The description given in the Bill of Entry is clear and the appellants also certified in the Bill of Entry that the imported parts were not inter-changeable with domestic sewing machine. Besides, the Appellate Collector has given a categorical finding that the imported goods were parts of the Industrial sewing machines. As submitted by Sh. Sogani, the Asstt. Collector went wrong in applying the Horse Power criterion to decide the nature of the Sewing Machines into which these parts were to go. In the circumstances, we hold that the imported goods are eligible for classification under sub-heading (1) under Heading 84.41, CTA. Accordingly, we allow this appeal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 416 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Procedural defects ... ... ... ... ..... an opportunity to comply with the requirements. In regard to the omission to affix court-fee stamps, we find that the substantial justice ought not to have been denied for this formal omission. The Tribunal has considered the effect of such proceedings in 1987 (10) E.T.R.121 Central India Tobacco Products (P) Ltd., Jabalpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore . A single Member of the Tribunal has rightly observed that ldquo After all the Court-Fee Act was passed not to arm the litigant with a weapon of technicalities against his opponent but to secure revenue for the benefit of the State rdquo . It does not appear from the records whether the appellants were allowed an opportunity to rectify the defects and pay the requisite Court-Fee. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the Collector (Appeals) is directed to re-hear the appeals and dispose them of on merits. The appellants would be granted an opportunity to rectify the defects pointed out above.
-
1987 (7) TMI 415 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Iron and steel products ... ... ... ... ..... ods rdquo . Further, if as Department says, M.S. Rods being forged are dutiable under sub-item (ia) or Item 26AA, then one would not be justified in charging duty on the rivets as ldquo forged product rdquo again. The Department has quoted general dictionary meanings of ldquo rivets rdquo and ldquo nails rdquo without adverting to the import. We do not see any justification to charge duty under Item 26AA(ia) at this stage. 8. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of Himalaya Industries has considered the applicability of the Government of India rsquo s instructions in letter No. 139/46-83-CX. LV, dated 16-11-84, wherein it is directed that for the period 1-8-80 to 6-4-81 the benefit of proforma credit and set-off for steel forgings be made available if it was established that they were manufactured out of duty paid rods although strict procedure in terms of Rule 56-A had not been followed. 9. The appeal is rejected and the Cross Objection is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (7) TMI 414 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... re specific and, therefore, is to be preferred as per Rule 3 of the Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff. 8. We find that these points were also before the Collector (Appeals), however they were not adequately dealt with in his order in which he has held that the goods would be classifiable under Item 90.16-CTA. His order, which is cryptic, relies essentially on the argument that Chapter 98 stands for stationery articles and that the impugned goods cannot be considered as stationery articles of the nature of writing pens etc. This argument is fallacious and has to be rejected. We quite agree that the articles imported are essentially pen nibs, which are covered by heading 98.04-CCCN (98.03/09-CTA) which would cover pen nibs with or without nib points of any design, whether for writing, drawing, lithography or music writing. The respondents have not been able to convince us that the impugned goods can be classifiable as parts of drawing instruments. 9. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... this case because the period mentioned in the rule has run out. While it may be legitimate for the respondent to adjust a refund payable to an assessee against other amount of duty payable by him in accordance with law. It is certainly not open to them to make such and adjustment against a demand which has not been and which cannot be made. The orders of the Appellate Collector and the revision order directing such appropriation by wav of adjustment are wholly illegal and without justification. rdquo It was held by the Tribunal that in the absence of a proper notice and consequent re-assessment following adjudication proceedings, the Revenue was not entitled to adjust the duty on flush doors under Item No. 68 CET against the refund of duty collected under Item No. 16B CET, which was payable to the appellants in consequence of the Central Government rsquo s order in revision. Following the said decision, we set aside the impugned order in the present case and allow the appeal.
-
1987 (7) TMI 412 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Non-preferment of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... is waste cotton or cotton waste. If it is cotton waste, cotton yarn manufactured out of such ldquo Yellow Pickings rdquo would be entitled to the benefit of duty exemption granted under Central Excise Notification No. 95/61, dated 1-4-1961. The Collector held that the ldquo Yellow Pickings rdquo lsquo were not cotton waste and the cotton yarn manufactured by the appellants were not eligible for the exemption. In order No. 1013/86-D dated 26-12-1986, this Tribunal found In favour of the assessee in a similar matter (Appeal No. 1430/81-D - Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Shree Vyankateshwar Waste Cotton Spinning Mills). Following the ratio of the said decision, we hold that, in the present instance also, the cotton yarn manufactured by the present appellants out of ldquo Yellow Pickings rdquo was eligible for duty exemption. Consequently, the penal action taken against, and the duty demanded from, the appellants cannot be sustained and are set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 411 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Crank shafts ... ... ... ... ..... mps and not parts of transmission system and, therefore, should be assessed under heading 84.11(1) CTA. 3. Shri Saha opposing the arguments submitted that Crank Shaft, being Transmission Shaft, is specific item under heading 84.63 and it drew out attention to Section Note 2(a) to Section XVI CTA. 4. We have considered the arguments of both sides. It is not denied that the imported goods consisted of Crank Shaft, which is a transmission shaft and, is therefore, specifically covered by 84.63. The order of the Appellate Collector which took note of this fact and also of Section Note 2(a) to Section XVI does not call for interference. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
........
|
