|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 257 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... totality of the evidence discussed rdquo , it was not open to Assistant Collector to reject the invoice and again ask for concrete evidence. Assistant Collector was required to decide the case in the light of directions in the remand order. Since Collector had already accepted invoice as also the International House Airway Bill No. 906437, dated 8-12-1982, it was not for Assistant Collector to disregard to findings arrived at by Collector (Appeals). It is not contended before me that any revenue appeal has been filed against the Order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals), against whose order, this appeal has been directed, has also not gone into this aspect in his order dated 22-1-1991. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for considering the refund strictly in accordance with the directions given by the Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 13-11-1987. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1995 (8) TMI 193 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Perecoated Thin Layer Chromatograph plates ... ... ... ... ..... goods and accessories in this regard. 3. emsp Shri Puri, the ld. SDR, however, contends that the accessory can only be the attachment, which contributes to the effectiveness of a piece of equipment without changing its basic function. Here, plates are essential for performing the functions and in that sense it is an essential part and hence it cannot be allowed. 4. emsp After careful consideration of these arguments, I find that the definition of capital goods includes an accessory. Accessory, as per the policy, would also include a part, which contributes to the effectiveness of the equipment. The plates imported, even as per the stand of the revenue, are essential parts for effective performance of Chromatograph. The objection taken, though prima facie seems to be valid going by common parlance meaning of a component part or accessory, when it is viewed against the definition given in the policy, benefit can be extended. Hence, I allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1995 (8) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... or the appellant, I am of the view that one more adjournment could have been granted as the Counsel could not be present evidently under unavoidable circumstances on grounds of ill-health. The fact of ill-health has also been brought to the notice of the learned adjudicating authority not only by telephonic message but also by telegram. The normal practice in a court of law is that whenever a Counsel in charge of a case could not appear on grounds of ill-health, the case is normally adjourned and the request for adjournment on grounds of ill-health by the Counsel cannot be said to be unreasonable. In this view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the limited issue with reference to levy of penalty on the appellant in accordance with law, after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ordered accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 191 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Deemed Export ... ... ... ... ..... ted Unit treating the goods as deemed export. The learned DR submitted that it is only effective from 1-3-1992 the Notification No. 4/92 was introduced giving the benefit of Modvat credit on the ground that goods cleared by a unit in favour of 100 Export Oriented Unit would be construed to be a deemed export and since in the present case the period is anterior to the notification in question, the same may not be retrospectively applicable to the goods in question. 4. emsp On going through the entire records and after hearing the plea of the learned DR, we find considerable force in the submissions and hold that the notification in question, namely, 4/92, dated 1-3-1992 cannot be made applicable retrospectively to treat the goods in question as deemed export even though the goods were cleared to the 100 export oriented unit so as to give the benefit of Modvat credit in favour of the respondent. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 190 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the `cast iron’ in the list of declared goods in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act would include `Cast Iron Castings’?
Held that:- There is considerable force in the contention of the appellant. The appeals are allowed. The circular dated 14-9-1993 is quashed and the impugned show cause notices issued pursuant to the aforesaid circular are also quashed, with the clarification that `rough unmachined cast iron castings’ will continue to be treated as declared goods under sub-item (i) of Item (iv) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The respondents, however, will be at liberty to tax any product made out of the `rough unmachined cast iron castings’ in accordance with law.
-
1995 (8) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... yond the free period (1) Govind POY Oxygen Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Goa - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 725 (Tribunal), and (2) Collector of Central Excise v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 277 (Tribunal) dealt with charges incurred on the repairs, maintenance and testing of cylinders/tonners but in the present case, we are concerned with the repairs of wooden crates and not the glass bottles. In the case of Aqueous Victuals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 42 (Tribunal), the rental charges were for bottles in which aerated waters was transported. There was no discussion with regard to any deposit for the retention/holding of bottles. In this case, the appellants had claimed deduction for loss of interest. They had already taken deposits from their buyers. 15. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is rejected, and the impugned order-in-appeal is confirmed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n the Tariff, it is essential to find whether the yarn contained man-made fibre of non-cellulosic origin when it is a blended yarn. The question before us is not whether the fibre is different from the waste but whether the spun yarn in question contained or did not contain the fibre of non-cellulosic origin. The Tariff entry uses the expression containing rsquo . We have seen above that the spun yarn is produced after spinning the fibres, No yarn could be made out of the waste directly. It has to be made fit for mixing and blending with other constituent fibres and/or for forming sliver/roving. The fact that spun yarn has been produced itself establishes that the non-cellulosic waste had been made fit for mixing/blending with other fibres. In the circumstances, there is no doubt that the yarn in question contained fibre of non-cellulosic origin. 17. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we accept the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the impugned order.
-
1995 (8) TMI 185 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Loss of goods due to pilferage or otherwise ... ... ... ... ..... received, they were lost either due to pilferage or otherwise. This would appear to be the position with regard to the consignment in the other appeal which the IAAI has received damaged/empty condition. In that case the appellant would not be required to pay duty by the application either of Section 23 or of Section 13. The Collector rsquo s finding that the loss is not final and, therefore, refund cannot be sanctioned is not sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 13 which provides that duty liability would arise if pilfered goods restored to the appellant. If the goods were traced by the appellant, they would be handed back to the IAAI from whose custody they were apparently stolen. In any event, there is no provision of law for withholding the refund on this account. 5. emsp In the circumstances, I allow both the appeals. No other reason having been given for rejecting the refund the appellant becomes entitled to it. Consequential relief therefore, would follow.
-
1995 (8) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... er will be classified with the comonomer which predominates over others. The appellate authority has gone by the factual position that in the product in question styrene monomer predominates by weight over other comonomers. We also find that as per the chapter Note 4 comonomers whose polymers fall in the same heading being regarded as constituting a single comonomer. Department has not produced any technical data on record to rebutt the above factual position or to throw any light on the chemical composition of the product in question. We also take note of the fact that sub-heading 3903.90 is residuary in character and has to be taken aid of only in those cases where the product is not classifiable under any of the preceding sub-headings. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the polystyrene copolymers beads rsquo are classifiable as polystyrene under sub-heading 3903.10. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal of the department is rejected.
-
1995 (8) TMI 181 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import of - `Brass wire ... ... ... ... ..... Appx. 6 List 8 Part I of the Policy AM 1985-88 and hence refusal to clear the goods imported under the said provisions is justified. 13. emsp An alternate plea raised is that the quantum of redemption fine assessed, to the extent of 40 of the CIF value, is too excessive and disproportionate. The appellants are actual users, and there is also no allegation that the goods were meant to be diverted elsewhere. It is probable that the Entry No. 512 of Appx. 6 List 8 Part I may have been misconstrued by them, and personal penalty is also not imposed. The appellants being the actual users, therefore, some reduction in the quatum of redemption fine appears justified. The fine in lieu of confiscation is therefore reduced to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only). 14. emsp The appeal is thus partly allowed and while order of confiscation is sustained, the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only). Consequential relief to follow.
-
1995 (8) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... e total value of clearances for the purpose of determination of the quantum of duty leviable. 15. emsp On the question of value of electric motors being taken twice and expenses on advertisement we observe that after some arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants did not press these points further and we would not therefore, disagree with the findings of the lower authorities. 16. emsp Having regard to the above findings, no further issues are left for determining the value of clearances for the year 1979-80 or of pressure cookers and electric motors for the period mentioned above. 17. emsp In regard to the seizure, we find that the goods were removed without payment of duty and therefore, seizure and confiscation thereof is sustainable in law. The quantum of penalty is also commensurate with the offence and hence is upheld. 18. emsp In the light of the above findings, the impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... wice by the appellant and it was only after the Department took objection for such availing of the credit without permission, that they had reversed the same. The plea taken by the appellant that they had filed their claim and the same had not been considered for a long time and that they were told to transfer the credit and utilise the same and Department post facto granted permission is not substantiated. There is no evidence on record that Department had given oral instructions to them. Rule 57H(3) is clear that Asstt. Collector has to allow the credit of duty lying unutilised as on 1-3-1986 in RG-23 Part II to be transferred to RG-23A II. Even before the permission is granted, the appellants suo moto had taken the credit of duty. Therefore, the violation of the rule is quite clear. The imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/ is not excessive. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order and the same is required to be confirmed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Detained goods ... ... ... ... ..... uested that the order may be passed for directing the Department not to take coercive steps during the pending disposal of the stay application. She also submitted that cigarettes valued at Rs. 86,73,923/- were detained as against demand of duty of Rs. 13.8 crores and the penalty of Rs. 4.2 crores. 3. emsp Shri A.K. Singhal, learned Junior Departmental Representative opposed for passing any order as prayed by the applicants and submitted that this matter has come up on Board on several times and same has been adjourned at the instance of the applicants. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. After hearing the submissions and on perusal of the records, we direct the Department not to auction the goods in question till 14-9-1995 and further Department is directed not to take coercive steps during the pending disposal of the stay petition. The matter to come up for further orders on 14-9-1995. Copy of this order may be given to both sides DASTI.
-
1995 (8) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Denial of ... ... ... ... ..... f the order did they approach the Collectorate and obtained copy of the show cause notice. 4. emsp Shri Madan, the Learned DR stated in reply that the reference to the earlier order passed by the Collector was in a limited context on the question of classification. The contention raised by the Learned Counsel about the denial of natural justice is not accepted by him. 5. emsp We have considered the rival submissions. We are satisfied that in the facts of the case there has been denial of natural justice at both stages namely, show cause notice and the adjudication. In the circumstances, we set aside the order appealed against and allow the appeal by remand to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut for de novo adjudication after granting them hearing. The appellants are directed to send their reply to the show cause notice to the Commissioner within a month of receipt of this order whereafter the Commissioner should adjudicate the case after granting them personal hearing.
-
1995 (8) TMI 174 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Deemed Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... eaded that the inputs are clearly recognisable as non-duty paid (sic) and deemed MODVAT Credit should be allowed. 4. emsp The learned DR adopted the reasoning of the learned lower appellate authority and pleaded that it is not the case of the appellants that HPCL has paid any duty on the scrap material which had emerged as a result of repeated use of the same. He therefore prayed for upholding the order of the learned lower appellate authority. 5. emsp I observe that there is a lot of force in the plea of the learned DR that scrap as emerged in the hands of HCPL were cleared without payment of duty as scrap and therefore, the question of taking MODVAT Credit would not arise. The provisions of Rule 57G make it clear that where the goods are recognisable as non-duty paid, MODVAT Credit could not be allowed. In the present case, admittedly no duty has been paid on the scrap materials and therefore, the plea of the appellants cannot be accepted. The appeal is therefore, rejected.
-
1995 (8) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Cotton yarn ... ... ... ... ..... ifferent orders of the Tribunal, the Tribunal followed the majority opinion in this matter. Having regard to the fact that the process of doubling or multifolding of single ply yarn of the same type does not amount to manufacture of any other commodity because even after doubling or multifolding it had remained the same yarn whether cotton or cellulosic spun yarn, it cannot therefore, be said that in terms of the Explanation added to Rules 9 and 49 by Notification No. 20/82, dated 20-2-1982 that single yarn has been utilized in the manufacture of another commodity. We also observe that the relevant Tariff Items do not make any such distinction between two varieties of yarn. We therefore, hold that the doubling/multifolding of yarn of the same type in the instant case does not amount to utilization of single ply yarn in the manufacture of another commodity so as to be covered by Explanation to Rules 9 and 49. 10. emsp Having regard to the above findings, we reject the appeals.
-
1995 (8) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... the appellants are resols as mentioned in Item 15A it could not be subjected to duty. The purpose of specifying the goods in the Schedule is twofold, one, the rate on which the duty would be charged and other that if the goods satisfy the description and are covered in the Entry then they are liable to pay excise duty. But even in respect of specified goods it could be established that it was not marketable or capable of being marketed. Therefore, no duty was leviable on it. In the instant case, there was a clear finding by the Assistant Collector that synthetic resins were formed as an intermediate product in unstable and nonmarketable condition. Since this position has not been rebutted by the Department, nor substantiated that the item in question is capable of being marketed, following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that they are not excisable goods and as such they are not classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(1). Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 170 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Offences - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... r the offences under the Indian Penal Code. When his complaints are in respect of offences under the Indian Penal Code also, he cannot be said to be a complainant who was acting in discharge of his duties as a public servant and, therefore, it was necessary that he ought to have been examined by the Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. of course, this procedure ought to have been followed by the Court only if it had the powers to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code which the Court is not empowered to do so for the reasons discussed by me above. Hence, I am of the opinion that the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners are sustainable in law and the petitions are required to be allowed. 12. emsp Hence, I proceed to pass the following order The petitions are allowed. The orders of both the Courts below challenged in these petitions are set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Section 245 Cr.P.C. are allowed and they are discharged.
-
1995 (8) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ration Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, 1986 (26) E.L.T. 353, it has been held that repair/reconditioning/remaking does not amount to manufacture. 9. emsp In Lathia lndustries Supplies v. Collector of Central Excise - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 751, it has been held that rerubberising and relinking of old and used rollers does not amount to manufacture. 10. emsp In Raman Electricals v. Union of India, it has been held that reprocessing and repair of transformers does not amount to manufacture. 11. emsp In Collector of Central Excise v. Hindustan Tyres (P) Ltd. - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 409, held that rerubberisation of old and use M.S. Rims does not amount to manufacture. 12. emsp In Collector of Central Excise v. Maize Products Ltd. - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 390, it has been held that reconditioning of duty paid Dextrons Powder into Glucose does not amount to manufacture. 13. emsp In the result, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and the same is set said and the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... fore, the appeals were allowed with the direction that countervailing duty be re-assessed under Item 31(2) CET and consequential refund be given to the appellants. This ratio was followed in the appellant rsquo s own case in Order No. C/2/95-B2, dated 6-12-1994. In the light of the order, the Tribunal has also ordered for classification for the purpose of assessment under Heading 85.04 for CVD under 31(2) and the directions were given to the Revenue authorities to give consequential relief and thus the appeal had been partly allowed. 5. emsp We take note of the above orders and taking into consideration of the same and applying the ratio thereof, we hold that the assessment for classification under the Customs Act is required to be confirmed under Heading 85.04 and for CVD purpose under Heading 31(2) of Central Excise Tariff Act and that the appellants are entitled for consequential relief to the extent ordered in earlier cases. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
........
|
