Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1990 1990 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 292 Records

• 1990 (9) TMI 176
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Nature of the distributorship agreement.
  2. Bar of limitation on the show-cause notice.
  3. Inclusion of expenses incurred by the buyer in the assessable value.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Nature of the Distributorship Agreement:
  
  The appellants argued that their distributorship agreement with the buyer was on a principal-to-principal basis. The Collector had alleged that the discount given to the buyer was partly to cover expenses that should have been borne by the appellants, thus making the discount includable in the assessable value. The Tribunal analyzed the terms of the agreement, particularly clauses 2.08, 3.02, 4.01, 5, and 7, which indicated that the buyer purchased products on their own account and was responsible for advertisement and sales promotion. The Tribunal directed the Collector to examine the relevant purchase orders and contracts of sale to determine if the transactions were indeed on a principal-to-principal basis. If so, the expenses incurred by the buyer would not affect the assessable value.
  
  2. Bar of Limitation on the Show-Cause Notice:
  
  The appellants contended that the show-cause notice was barred by limitation, as the department was aware of the distributorship agreements and the 30% discount since 1982. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had consistently informed the department about the agreements and their terms, which were acknowledged by the department through various permissions and classifications. The Tribunal found that the department's allegation of suppression of facts was unsustainable, as the agreements were always within the department's knowledge. Consequently, the show-cause notice was held to be barred by limitation.
  
  3. Inclusion of Expenses Incurred by the Buyer in the Assessable Value:
  
  The Collector's order included a 14% addition towards expenses incurred by the buyer under clauses 2.01 to 2.10. The appellants challenged this finding, arguing that the expenses were not exclusively related to their products. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of specific statistics or evidence to support the 14% figure. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's finding on this point and remanded the case for a limited purpose: to ascertain the nature of the transaction based on the contracts of sale, purchase orders, and price lists.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the case to the Collector for further examination of the nature of the transactions to determine if they were on a principal-to-principal basis. The show-cause notice was found to be barred by limitation, and the inclusion of 14% expenses in the assessable value was set aside due to lack of evidence.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 175
  
  Issues involved:
  The issue involves the rejection of the application by the Collector (Appeals) for a consolidated license in Form L-4 for manufacturing various products within the same factory complex.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  1. The appellant, a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, applied for one consolidated license in Form L-4 for manufacturing polyester staple fibre, acrylic staple fibre, polyester filament yarn, and nylon filament yarn within its factory complex at Jaykaynagar, Kota.
  2. The appellant had previously been issued multiple licenses for different products, and due to all products being manufactured within the same factory complex, sought a consolidated license for operational convenience.
  3. Despite initial rejection by the excise authorities, the appellant persisted in its request for a consolidated license, citing common ownership, utility services, and a shared sub-station among its manufacturing units.
  4. Changes in excise rules and forms were introduced, prompting the appellant to reapply for a consolidated license, which was again rejected by the Superintendent of Central Excise.
  5. Subsequent appeals and requests for consolidation of licenses were denied by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.
  6. The Tribunal considered the layout of the factory premises, the nature of the manufacturing units, and the definition of a factory under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, in determining the eligibility of the appellant for a consolidated license.
  7. It was established that the appellant's units were part of the same factory complex, sharing common boundaries and falling within the same industrial area, thus justifying the issuance of a single consolidated license.
  8. The Tribunal found errors in the lower authorities' conclusions regarding separate premises and entities, emphasizing the unity of the appellant's operations within a single factory complex.
  9. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the right to obtain a consolidated license for manufacturing its goods within the factory complex.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 174
  
  Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods, Penalty imposition, Abetting in misdeclaration
  
  The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by M/s. Mody Brothers against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, regarding the misdeclaration of imported goods. The imported goods, initially declared as brass dross, were found to be brass scrap upon inspection. The importers had claimed clearance under a specific policy, but misdeclaration led to a higher rate of duty. The appellants, as indenting agents, were accused of being party to the misdeclaration. The Collector confiscated the goods but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine and imposed penalties on both importers and indenting agents. The main issue raised in the appeal was the refund of the penalty imposed on the importers.
  
  The judgment analyzed the evidence and found that the appellants had not made efforts to clarify the misdeclaration with the supplier, indicating their involvement in abetting the misdeclaration. Citing legal precedents, the judgment emphasized that the incorrect mention of legal provisions does not invalidate the proceedings if there is a valid basis for the order. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, highlighting that non-mentioning of legal provisions does not vitiate proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty but reduced it from Rs. 5000.00 to Rs. 2500.00 for the appellants. The order directed the revenue authorities to implement the modified penalty. The appeal was rejected except for the penalty reduction, considering the gravity of the offense and the principles of justice.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 173
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the product 'Vardhak' containing Alpha Naphthyl Acetic Acid qualifies for excise duty exemption under Notification No. 234/82.
  2. Whether the product 'Vardhak' is considered an insecticide or pesticide under the Central Excise notification.
  3. Applicability of the Tribunal's decision in the Agromore case to the present case.
  4. Whether the extended period of limitation applies for the demand of duty.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Excise Duty Exemption Under Notification No. 234/82:
  The primary issue is whether 'Vardhak', a product containing Alpha Naphthyl Acetic Acid, is eligible for excise duty exemption under Notification No. 234/82. The relevant entry in the notification reads "Insecticides, Pesticides, Weedicides, and Fungicides." The Assistant Collector did not accept the respondents' contention that the product is covered by the term 'pesticides', but the Collector (Appeals) upheld this contention. The Tribunal examined whether 'Vardhak' falls under the term 'pesticides' for the purpose of excise duty exemption.
  
  2. Classification as Insecticide or Pesticide:
  The Tribunal considered the nature of 'Vardhak' and its classification. It was established that 'Vardhak' is a plant growth regulator, not traditionally known or marketed as an insecticide or pesticide. Despite this, the respondents argued that it should be classified as a pesticide based on various pieces of evidence, including its registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The Tribunal acknowledged that while definitions in other enactments should not normally be used, the specific registration and recognition of 'Vardhak' under the Insecticides Act could not be entirely disregarded.
  
  3. Applicability of the Agromore Case:
  The Tribunal referred to the decision in Agromore Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, where it was held that plant growth regulators do not fall under the notification for excise duty exemption. Although the Tribunal found merit in the respondents' argument that plant growth regulators could be considered insecticides or pesticides, it ultimately followed the precedent set in the Agromore case, concluding that 'Vardhak' falls outside the scope of the Central Excise notification.
  
  4. Extended Period of Limitation:
  Two show cause notices were issued, one covering March 1979 to February 1984 and the other covering March 1984 to August 1984. The Assistant Collector's order did not clearly establish the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation. The show cause notices alleged misdeclaration by the respondents, but the Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence of willful suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could only recover duty for the period of six months preceding the dates of receipt of the respective show cause notices.
  
  Separate Judgments:
  - The President concluded that plant growth regulators are covered by the term 'insecticides or pesticides' but followed the Agromore decision, holding that 'Vardhak' falls outside the scope of the notification.
  - Member (Judicial) disagreed with applying the Agromore decision, arguing that the President's findings on merits should be upheld without relying on Agromore.
  - Member (Technical) agreed with the President, emphasizing judicial discipline and the need to follow the Agromore precedent.
  
  Final Order:
  The majority opinion held that 'Vardhak' falls outside the scope of Central Excise Notification No. 234/82, following the Agromore decision. However, the Revenue is entitled to recover duty only for the six months preceding the dates of receipt of the show cause notices. The appeal was allowed in these terms, and the so-called cross-objection was treated as written submissions.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 172
  
  Issues:
  1. Time limit for recovery of duty under Rule 49A.
  2. Applicability of Explanation to Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  3. Interpretation of duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  4. Levy of interest on additional duty of excise under the Additional Duties Act, 1978.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The case involved a dispute regarding the time limit for the recovery of duty under Rule 49A. The original authority applied the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, allowing a demand for a 5-year period due to a contravention of Rule 49A. However, on appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the demand was time-barred under the normal 6-month limit of Section 11A, as there was no allegation of suppression or misstatement of facts in the show cause notice. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, citing precedents and emphasizing the absence of grounds for extending the time limit beyond 6 months.
  
  2. The appellant-Collector argued that the duty under Rule 49A should include all duties of excise, not just those under the Central Excises and Salt Act, based on the Explanation to Section 4 of the Act. However, the respondents contended that this explanation applies only to duties leviable on an ad valorem basis, not weight-based duties like yarn. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, stating that the explanation to Section 4 is only relevant when Section 4 is being applied, which was not the case here.
  
  3. Another issue raised was the interpretation of duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, concerning the levy of interest on the basic duty of excise. The respondents argued that Rule 49A should only apply to duties under the Central Excises and Salt Act, excluding duties under the Additional Duties Act, 1978. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, citing Section 3(3) of the 1978 Act, which makes the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act applicable to the levy of duties under the 1978 Act. Therefore, Rule 49A would also apply to the additional duty of excise under the 1978 Act.
  
  4. Lastly, the appellant-Collector contended that the time limit for recovery of short payment of interest under Rule 49A should be 5 years due to contravention with an intent to evade payment. However, the Tribunal relied on a previous decision to uphold a general limitation of 3 years for such cases. Since the show cause notice fell within the 3-year limit, the Tribunal deemed it timely for the recovery of short-payment of interest on yarn duty for the specified period. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the impugned order.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 171
  
  Issues:
  - Imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962
  - Exemption from duty based on the fat content of imported milk powder
  - Interpretation of Section 116 in relation to duty-free goods
  - Justifiability of penalty in cases of duty exemption
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment pertains to a case where the appellant, a government undertaking acting as a steamer agent, was penalized for the short landing of 243 bags of Fortified Non-fat Dry Milk Powder. The penalty of Rs. 58,035 was imposed by the Appellate Collector, which was confirmed in the revision application transferred to the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the milk powder, with fat content less than 4%, was eligible for duty exemption under a relevant customs notification, citing a government order in support of their claim.
  
  The Respondent, represented by the learned SDR, argued that no proof was provided to establish the fat content of the milk powder as less than 4%, thereby justifying the penalty. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and acknowledged the government's view that penalties should not be imposed on goods exempted from duty. However, a decision of the Calcutta High Court was cited, emphasizing that Section 116 of the Customs Act applies to short landing of imported cargo, irrespective of duty liability.
  
  The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 116 can be imposed regardless of duty liability, with the objective being not only to compensate the government but also to deter similar offenses and safeguard revenue collection. While upholding the imposition of the penalty, the Tribunal deemed the original amount excessive and reduced it to Rs. 20,000, considering the circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, subject to the modified penalty amount.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 170
  
  Issues:
  Eligibility for concessional assessment under Notification 35/79-CE.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The appeal in this case revolves around the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of concessional assessment under Notification 35/79-CE. The appellants, who manufacture branded chewing tobacco, claimed the benefit of concessional assessment at the rate of 15% under the said notification, arguing that the value of the branded chewing tobacco did not exceed Rs. 10 per kg. The dispute arose regarding the inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in the assessable value and whether the net weight or gross weight of the tobacco should be considered for determining the rate of duty under the notification.
  
  The initial proceedings involved a show cause notice issued by the Superintendent, which culminated in an order by the Assistant Collector confirming a demand for a specific period. The Assistant Collector held that post-manufacturing expenses were to be included in the assessable value, leading to a higher rate of duty. The issue of net or gross weight was also addressed, with the Assistant Collector emphasizing the inclusion of post-manufacturing charges in the assessable value.
  
  Subsequent appeals and review notices further delved into the inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in the assessable value. The Appellate Collector opined that post-manufacturing charges should not be included when optional, and the Government of India later held that such expenses were includible. The appellants challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the appeal.
  
  The final determination in this case was influenced by a previous decision of the Tribunal in a similar case, where it was held that the value of primary packing should be included in determining the value of the tobacco for notification purposes. The Tribunal clarified that the value should reflect the tobacco's value when it reaches the ultimate consumer, after deducting the value of packaging materials. Based on this interpretation, the appellants were found eligible for the concessional rate of duty as the value of chewing tobacco per kg was less than Rs. 10.
  
  Regarding the argument of res judicata raised by the learned SDR, the Tribunal found that the issue of gross or net weight was not raised or decided in the previous judgment of the Bombay High Court. The High Court's decision focused on the inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in the assessable value, and the weight issue was not part of the dispute. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the High Court judgment did not operate as res judicata against the appellants.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the settled interpretation of the notification and the absence of a conclusive decision on the weight issue by the Bombay High Court.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 169
  
  Issues:
  - Maintainability of the appeal filed by the Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act.
  - Interpretation of the term "aggrieved person" under Sec. 129A.
  - Comparison of the present case with the Delhi High Court judgment.
  - Consideration of the role of investigating officers in filing appeals.
  - Analysis of the implications of allowing officers to file appeals based on revenue interests.
  - Examination of the provisions under Sec. 129D of the Customs Act for safeguarding revenue interests.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay dealt with the maintainability of an appeal filed by the Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence against an order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay releasing certain consignments. The Appellate Tribunal considered the argument presented by Shri Mondal, representing the appellant, that the Asstt. Director, being aggrieved by the order which was against public and revenue interest, had the right to file the appeal under Sec. 129A. Shri Mondal heavily relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a different case to support the appellant's standing as an aggrieved party. However, the Tribunal found that the factual circumstances in the present case were distinct from the Delhi High Court case. The Tribunal highlighted a previous decision where it was held that allowing officers to file appeals based on revenue interests could lead to indiscipline and chaos in revenue administration.
  
  The Tribunal emphasized that officers or investigating agencies should not be allowed to file appeals under Sec. 129A merely because revenue interests are at stake. It was noted that separate provisions exist under Sec. 129D of the Customs Act to safeguard revenue interests, and the proper course of action for the Department in such cases would be to seek a review by the Board for authorization to file an appeal. The Tribunal concluded that permitting officers to file appeals based on revenue considerations would encourage indiscipline and chaos within revenue administration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Asstt. Director, Revenue Intelligence was deemed not maintainable, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the Department's recourse under Sec. 129D of the Customs Act.
  
  In light of the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability, the Tribunal also ruled that the stay application did not survive for consideration. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding discipline and proper procedures in revenue administration, highlighting the significance of adhering to the specific provisions within the Customs Act for addressing issues related to revenue interests and appeals.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 168
  
  Issues:
  Claim for sugar incentive rebate under notification No. 132/82 as amended by notification No. 183/82. Time limitation for filing the claim under Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Dispute regarding the filing of the claim with the Resident Inspector and its impact on the time bar. Interpretation of the law on filing refund claims with the Assistant Collector. Department's appeal on the Resident Inspector's role as an agent of the Assistant Collector. Applicability of estoppel against the Statute. Comparison with relevant judgments on similar issues.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a claim for a sugar incentive rebate under specific notifications, with a focus on the time limitation for filing the claim as per Section 11-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The dispute arose due to the claim initially being filed with the Resident Inspector, although it was within the statutory time limit. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as time-barred based on the date of receipt in his office, which was after the stipulated period. However, the lower appellate authority overturned this decision, emphasizing that the claim was filed within time with the Resident Inspector, who delayed returning it for filing with the Assistant Collector.
  
  The department contended that the Resident Inspector was not an agent of the Assistant Collector, and Section 11-B mandated filing refund claims directly with the Assistant Collector. They argued against considering the delay caused by departmental officers as an excuse, citing the principle of no estoppel against the Statute. Reference was made to a Tribunal judgment supporting this position. Conversely, the respondents highlighted the practice and procedure of filing claims with the Resident Inspector, who interacted with them and delayed instructing them to file with the Assistant Collector. They relied on precedents emphasizing the duty of departmental officers to guide industry practices.
  
  The Tribunal, considering the facts and arguments, upheld the lower appellate authority's decision based on the principle that departmental officers are responsible for guiding industry practices. They stressed that the delay in filing with the Assistant Collector could not be attributed to the assessee, especially when the claim was initially addressed to the Assistant Collector. The Tribunal found merit in the respondent's reliance on relevant judgments and dismissed the department's appeal, aligning with consistent precedents on similar issues. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of departmental responsibility in ensuring compliance with statutory procedures, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 167
  
  Issues:
  Classification of "Chinese Menthol Crystal - Polar Bear Brand USP/BP" for levy of basic customs duty under the Customs Tariff Act and countervailing duty under the Central Excise Tariff.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The appellants imported Chinese Menthol Crystal USP/BP/I Grade and claimed assessment under Heading 29.01/45(13) of the Customs Tariff Act and under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, disputing the initial classification under 29.01/45(11) and T.I. 58 CET. They filed a refund application for the difference in duty rates.
  
  2. The Refund Department requested technical literature and end-use certificates for the imported Menthol Crystals. The appellants amended their refund claim to only basic duty refund, reducing the claim amount. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim, citing the predominant use of Menthol as an Aromatic Chemical and the absence of end-use certificates.
  
  3. The dispute arose regarding the classification under both the Customs Tariff and Central Excise Tariff. The appellants initially claimed a refund of customs duty and countervailing duty but later restricted it to basic duty only. The Assistant Collector's decision included countervailing duty, which the appellants contested in their appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals).
  
  4. The Tribunal addressed the countervailing duty aspect first, emphasizing the principle that a specific entry in the Central Excise Tariff prevails over a general entry. It cited precedents to support the classification of goods under a specific entry, in this case, T.I. 58 CET for Menthol Crystals, not under the general entry T.I. 68.
  
  5. Regarding the classification for basic customs duty, the Tribunal compared the definitions of Heading 29.01/45(13) for Pharmaceutical Chemicals and 29.01/45(11) for Aromatic Chemicals. It considered expert references indicating the medical-grade use of Menthol and Customs Tariff Advice supporting classification under Heading 29.01/45(13).
  
  6. The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods should be assessed under Heading 29.01/45(13) for basic customs duty and T.I. 58 CET for countervailing duty, thereby not qualifying for the exemption under Notification 234/82-C.E. The appeal was partly allowed based on this classification analysis.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 166
  
  Issues:
  Classification of paper based decorative laminated sheets under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the classification of paper based decorative laminated sheets under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The lower authorities had classified the goods under sub-heading No. 3920.37 as rigid laminated plastic sheets, contrary to the appellants' claim for classification under sub-heading No. 4823.90. The key issue was to determine the correct classification of the goods under the tariff schedule.
  
  During the hearing, the appellants' counsel referred to previous Tribunal decisions in similar cases to support their claim for classification under sub-heading No. 4823.90. They argued that the goods should be classified under this sub-heading based on the Tribunal's earlier decisions, which considered paper based decorative laminated sheets containing plastics to fall under this classification.
  
  In response, the respondent sought to distinguish the present case from previous decisions, relying on Chapter note 1(f) which excluded certain goods from the scope of Chapter 48 of the Schedule. The respondent argued that the present goods, being multi-layered, did not fall under the prescription that plastics should constitute more than half the total thickness, as it applied to goods consisting of one layer of paper or paper board coated with plastics.
  
  After considering the submissions, the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contentions and upheld the appellants' claim for classification under Chapter 48. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were more appropriately termed as resin-reinforced paper sheets rather than paper-reinforced plastic sheets. The manufacturing process involved resin impregnated paper sheets laminated together, which led to the conclusion that Chapter 48 was the correct classification for the goods.
  
  The Tribunal found similarities between the manufacturing process in the present case and previous decisions, particularly the Amit Polymers case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's classification and directed that the goods be classified under Chapter 48, in line with the Tribunal's previous decisions in similar cases.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 165
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on Notification No. 80/80.
  2. Jurisdiction of the Regional Bench.
  3. Interpretation of exemption notification requirements.
  4. Effect of not filing declaration for availing notification benefits.
  5. Applicability of previous tribunal orders on similar cases.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals) based on the non-filing of a declaration as required under Notification No. 80/80. The appellant argued that they secured a large order initially, leading them to believe they wouldn't exceed the exemption limit. However, when their total clearances did not surpass the limit, they filed the refund claim. The issue of jurisdiction was raised, with the appellant citing previous decisions by North and South Regional Benches to support their case.
  
  Regarding the interpretation of the exemption notification requirements, the Assistant Collector contended that the non-filing of the declaration rendered the appellant ineligible for the exemption. The appellant, on the other hand, argued that even if the benefit of the notification was not claimed in the classification list, but its conditions were met, the exemption should be granted. The Tribunal noted that the question at hand was not about the rate of duty but the procedure to avail the notification's benefit.
  
  The Tribunal referred to a previous order by the North Regional Bench in a similar case, emphasizing that a declaration based on an estimate of production is crucial for availing the exemption. It was highlighted that for minor procedural errors, substantive benefits should not be denied in the interest of justice. The Tribunal differentiated a previous case cited by the Assistant Collector, stating it did not address the current issue. Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the appeal based on the precedent set by the North Regional Bench in a similar case, emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the non-filing of the declaration.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of the circumstances surrounding the non-filing of the declaration and the substantive benefit that should not be denied for minor procedural errors. The decision was based on the interpretation of the exemption notification requirements and previous tribunal orders on similar cases.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 164
  
  Issues:
  Violation of Section 45(2)(b) - Liability of custodian for substitution and pilferage of goods in custody.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved an appeal against the Order of Additional Collector of Customs, Airport, New Delhi, dated 13-4-88. The appellants, the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), were the custodians of air cargo pending clearance by Customs. Customs discovered that some imported cargo was being substituted while in CWC's custody. The show cause notice alleged that CWC failed to prevent the substitution, penalizing them Rs. 1000 for violating Section 45(2)(b) by not ensuring safe custody of goods. CWC argued they took necessary precautions and the substitution might have occurred elsewhere. They highlighted their security measures and contended that the substitution did not happen under their watch.
  
  The learned SDR argued that CWC failed to take sufficient precautions, leading to the substitution and pilferage of goods while in their custody. However, the tribunal found merit in CWC's defense. CWC detailed their security arrangements, which the department did not dispute. The tribunal noted that under Section 45(2)(b), a custodian must ensure safe custody and prevent unauthorized removal of goods. While there was evidence of substitution and pilferage, the involvement of fictitious consignees suggested a broader conspiracy, not necessarily implicating CWC. The tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence showing CWC's deliberate negligence or participation in any conspiracy. It also considered the possibility of substitution before CWC took custody. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the violation of Section 45(2)(b) was not proven, setting aside the Additional Collector's order based on assumptions and suspicions rather than concrete evidence.
  
  In conclusion, the tribunal accepted the appeal, ruling in favor of CWC. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence in establishing liability and emphasized that custodians like CWC must take necessary precautions but cannot be penalized without concrete proof of negligence or direct involvement in any wrongdoing.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 163
  
  The Collector of Customs, Madras filed an appeal against an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras regarding the assessment of Film Lined Electrodes. The Tribunal, based on a previous decision, set aside the impugned order and ruled that the goods imported are to be assessed under Heading 85.03. The appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 162
  
  The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the grounds of not filing an appeal against the assessment order. The Tribunal held that the right to claim refund under Sec. 11B is independent, and the appellant is entitled to pursue the refund claim despite not appealing against the assessment order. The matter was remanded for consideration of the refund claim on its merits.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 161
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether affixing of labels with the aid of power amounts to a process in or in relation to manufacture and packing within the meaning of Notification 101/66.
  2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification 101/66 and Notification 80/80.
  3. Whether the appellants are considered manufacturers or job workers under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  4. Whether the demand confirmed on M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. is justified.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether affixing of labels with the aid of power amounts to a process in or in relation to manufacture and packing within the meaning of Notification 101/66:
  
  The appellants argued that labelling is neither a process of manufacture nor of packing, as it only indicates the name or identity of the product. They contended that the manufacture and packing into plastic bottles were done manually, and power was used only for affixing labels. The Tribunal found that the Collector erred in relying on Rule 51 of the Central Excise Rules and Rule 6 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, which apply only to wholesale and retail sale, not job workers. The Tribunal cited the decision in Bata India Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta, and the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Ninna Chemical Works & Others v. Union of India, concluding that labelling does not amount to a process of manufacture as it does not bring about any change in the raw material. Thus, labelling is not a process in or in relation to the manufacture and packing of the product.
  
  2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification 101/66 and Notification 80/80:
  
  The Tribunal held that labelling is not part of the process of packing, as the goods can be delivered without labels. Therefore, the appellants, as job workers and manufacturers, are eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification 101/66. The requirement of obtaining a licence does not apply to the appellants by virtue of Notification 111/78, which exempts manufacturing units producing goods totally exempt from excise duty from licensing procedures. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
  
  3. Whether the appellants are considered manufacturers or job workers under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
  
  The Tribunal noted that M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. argued they were not the manufacturers, but the appellants were. The Additional Collector held that the appellants were a dummy concern, only undertaking the manufacture of the said goods on a job charges basis payable by M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. The Tribunal found that the appellants were indeed the manufacturers, as they carried out manufacturing operations with their own plant, machinery, and workforce. The Tribunal cited the case of Nocil v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, which established that the job worker is the manufacturer.
  
  4. Whether the demand confirmed on M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. is justified:
  
  The Tribunal held that the demand confirmed on M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. was not justified, as the appellants were the manufacturers. The Tribunal found that the appellants were entitled to claim the exemption under Notification 101/66, as power was used only for labelling, not for any process of manufacture or packing. The exemption could be denied only if power was used for heating during the process of manufacture and packing, which was not the case here. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the penalties and demands imposed by the Additional Collector were set aside.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the Tribunal held that labelling does not amount to a process of manufacture or packing. The appellants were considered the manufacturers and were entitled to the benefit of Notification 101/66 and Notification 80/80. The demand confirmed on M/s. Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. was not justified.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 160
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Dispensation with pre-deposit of duty amount.
  2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to issue the show cause notice.
  3. Financial hardship of the applicant.
  4. Prima facie merits of the case.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Dispensation with Pre-deposit of Duty Amount:
  The applicant, M/s. Jai Vijay Metal Udyog Pvt. Ltd., sought dispensation with the pre-deposit of the duty amounting to Rs. 36,32,451.30. The period involved was from 1st March 1988 to 19th May 1988, with the show cause-cum-demand notice issued on 9th August 1988. The applicant argued that the revenue reclassified their product from aluminium wire rods under Heading 7604.10 to aluminium wire under Heading 7605.11, and that the notice should have been issued by the Collector in cases of misdeclaration or suppression as per Section 11A, amended from 27th December 1985. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's request for full dispensation would amount to undue hardship. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered a partial dispensation: the applicant was required to deposit Rs. 18,00,000 in cash and furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000 within 12 weeks.
  
  2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to Issue the Show Cause Notice:
  The applicant contested the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to issue the show cause notice, arguing that in cases of misdeclaration or suppression, the notice must be issued by the Collector. The Tribunal referenced the case of Partap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which distinguished between cases of short-levy due to fraud or suppression and other reasons. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not explicitly invoke the proviso to Section 11A and that mere mentioning of "misdeclared the facts" did not imply misdeclaration. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction is conferred by statute and cannot be assumed or taken away. The applicant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector, and thus, the order was not vitiated.
  
  3. Financial Hardship of the Applicant:
  The applicant argued that depositing the duty amount would cause undue hardship, supported by their balance-sheet showing a net profit of Rs. 6,01,896.84 for the year ending 31st March 1989. The Tribunal examined the financial position, noting a net profit of Rs. 9,06,381 after adding back depreciation, a turnover of Rs. 7,19,01,635, and sundry debtors amounting to Rs. 35,36,667. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's financial position was reasonably sound, but requiring the full deposit would still cause undue hardship.
  
  4. Prima Facie Merits of the Case:
  The Tribunal considered the prima facie merits of the case, referencing the judgment in Partap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which emphasized the distinction in Section 11A between cases of fraud or suppression and other reasons. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice was issued within the limitation period and did not explicitly invoke the extended period for fraud or suppression. The Tribunal found the merits of the case arguable and thus justified partial dispensation of the pre-deposit.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal ordered the applicant to deposit Rs. 18,00,000 in cash and furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000 within 12 weeks, with the condition that the revenue authorities would not pursue recovery for the balance amount during the appeal's pendency. The applicant was required to keep the bank guarantee alive and report compliance within 14 weeks, failing which the stay order would be vacated.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 159
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of Liquid Paraffin IP under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
  2. Interpretation of "separate chemically defined organic compounds."
  3. Validity of Chemical Examiner's report.
  4. Consideration of expert opinions submitted by appellants.
  5. Application of Chapter Notes to Chapters 27 and 29.
  6. Applicability of Tribunal's previous decisions.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Liquid Paraffin IP under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:
  The appeal was directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, which upheld the classification of Liquid Paraffin IP under Tariff Heading 2710.99. The appellants claimed classification under Chapter 29 with exemption under Notification 234/86, but the department classified it under Chapter 27. The Assistant Collector confirmed this classification after obtaining a Chemical Examiner's report.
  
  2. Interpretation of "separate chemically defined organic compounds":
  The appellants argued that the term "separate chemically defined organic compounds" was not defined under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and should be understood through expert opinion. The Assistant Collector interpreted it as a single compound, which was contested by the appellants. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. The Atul Products Ltd., which defined a separate chemically defined compound as a single chemical compound of known structure without other substances deliberately added.
  
  3. Validity of Chemical Examiner's report:
  The Chemical Examiner's report stated that Liquid Paraffin IP is a mixture of liquid hydrocarbons and not a single chemical compound, thus not meriting classification under Chapter 29. The Assistant Collector relied on this report, which was contested by the appellants for not addressing specific queries. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not insist on cross-examining the Chemical Examiner during adjudication.
  
  4. Consideration of expert opinions submitted by appellants:
  The appellants submitted expert opinions from various chemists, arguing that Liquid Paraffin IP has a unique chemical identity. However, the Assistant Collector did not make any observations on the validity of these opinions. The Tribunal found that these opinions did not categorically define Liquid Paraffin IP as a separate chemically defined organic compound.
  
  5. Application of Chapter Notes to Chapters 27 and 29:
  Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 27 excludes separate chemically defined organic compounds, while Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 29 includes them, whether or not containing impurities. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of Chapter Notes in classification and referred to the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), which define a separate chemically defined compound as a single chemical compound without other substances deliberately added.
  
  6. Applicability of Tribunal's previous decisions:
  The Tribunal applied the criteria from its decision in the Atul Products Ltd. case, which dealt with the classification of Naphthalene. The decision emphasized that a chemically defined compound should have a known structure and can contain impurities resulting solely from the manufacturing process. The Tribunal concluded that Liquid Paraffin IP, being a mixture of hydrocarbons with varying chemical structures, does not meet this criterion and thus cannot be classified under Chapter 29.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal concluded that Liquid Paraffin IP is a mixture of hydrocarbons with varying chemical structures and cannot be considered a separate chemically defined organic compound. Therefore, its classification under Heading 2710.99 by the lower authorities was confirmed. The appeal was rejected, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) was upheld.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 158
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the import license.
  2. Misdeclaration of goods.
  3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
  4. Requirement of mens rea for penalty.
  5. Quantum of redemption fine.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Import License:
  The appellants imported ball bearings under a license in the name of M/s. Rastriya Casting Works, which was later found to be suspended. The Additional Collector held the license void ab initio due to the non-existence of the licensee. The appellants argued that the license was valid at the time of importation and was only suspended later. The Tribunal concluded that a license issued to a non-existent entity is void from the beginning and cannot be considered valid for any importation, rendering the importation illegal.
  
  2. Misdeclaration of Goods:
  The appellants were found to have misdeclared the weight of the ball bearings, leading to an attempt to evade duty. The Additional Collector found that the appellants had declared the weight incorrectly, which was accepted by the appellants in their letter dated 13-11-1988. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had voluntarily agreed to pay the difference in duty before the Show Cause Notice was issued, and thus, the charge of misdeclaration was dropped.
  
  3. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
  The Additional Collector imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000 and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 on the appellants. The Tribunal upheld the redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, as it is a fine in rem, applicable irrespective of the knowledge of the person importing the goods. However, the penalty under Section 112, which requires proof of mens rea, was set aside due to the lack of strict proof of the appellants' knowledge or involvement in the fraudulent license.
  
  4. Requirement of Mens Rea for Penalty:
  The appellants argued that mens rea is essential for the imposition of penalty and that suspicion cannot replace proof. The Tribunal agreed, stating that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal and require strict proof. Since the appellants acted under the belief that the license was valid and there was no strict proof of their knowledge of the fraud, the penalty was not justified and was set aside.
  
  5. Quantum of Redemption Fine:
  The appellants contended that the redemption fine was excessive and based on market prices at the time of the order, not at the time of importation. The Tribunal agreed that the fine was on the higher side and noted that the details of market enquiries were not disclosed to the appellants, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Additional Collector to redetermine the redemption fine after giving the appellants an opportunity to present evidence.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of redemption fine but set aside the penalty due to the lack of mens rea. The quantum of the redemption fine was remanded for reconsideration, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

  ---

• 1990 (9) TMI 157
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the process of sintering manganese ore fines amounts to manufacture.
  2. Liability for duty payment: Paramount Sinters Private Limited or Maharashtra Electro Smelt Ltd.
  3. Applicability of Notification No. 118/75 and Notification No. 201/79.
  4. Justification of invoking Section 11A.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Whether the process of sintering manganese ore fines amounts to manufacture.
  
  The main question arising for decision in all these appeals is whether the process undertaken by the appellants by which particles of manganese ore fines get stuck to each other physically so as to form lumps (or larger particles of manganese ore) can amount to manufacture so as to attract levy of excise duty. The appellants contend that no chemical change takes place and only the physical form is changed, converting fines into larger particles or lumps. The lumps are used similarly to the raw materials for manufacturing Ferro Manganese Alloy. They argue that the process is akin to sticking together of candles and cannot be considered as manufacture. They also claim exemption under Notification No. 118/75 for goods under Tariff Item 68 when captively consumed.
  
  The appellants supported their contentions with technical opinions from various experts, stating that the properties of sintered ore fines and parent ore fines are the same and no new product is created by sintering the ore fines. The Departmental Representative argued that the process of sintering increases the grain size, resulting in a change in the final product with specific name, character, and use, thus classifying it under Tariff Item 68.
  
  Upon examining the technical literature and evidence, it is clear that manganese ore fines are converted into a granular, relatively coarse form through a physical change involving agglomeration processes like sintering. The experts uniformly opined that no chemical change occurs during this process. It is well settled that every process is not a process of manufacture unless it results in a product substantially different in name, character, and use. In this case, the manganese ore fines and sintered ones serve the same purpose, and the process does not result in a new product. Therefore, the process of agglomeration does not amount to manufacture.
  
  Issue 2: Liability for duty payment: Paramount Sinters Private Limited or Maharashtra Electro Smelt Ltd.
  
  The appellants argued that they are not the manufacturers but only Maharashtra Electro Smelt Ltd. They claimed that they merely undertake the process of sintering under an agreement with Maharashtra Electro Smelt Ltd., who supply the materials and own the shed and building. The appellants receive only commission charges and have no ownership rights over the ores and materials sintered by them.
  
  Given the finding that the process of sintering does not result in a new product, the question of liability for duty payment becomes moot. The appellants are not liable to pay duty as the process does not constitute manufacture.
  
  Issue 3: Applicability of Notification No. 118/75 and Notification No. 201/79.
  
  The appellants claimed that manganese ore sinters are entitled to total exemption under Notification No. 118/75 since the entire quantity of sinters is used within the factory of production. They also argued that any duty paid or payable on manganese ore sinters under Tariff Item 68 is available as set-off/proforma credit in terms of Notification No. 201/79 to Maharashtra Electro Smelt Ltd., who clear the Ferro Manganese on payment of duty under Tariff Item 68.
  
  As the process of sintering does not result in a new excisable product, the applicability of these notifications does not need further consideration.
  
  Issue 4: Justification of invoking Section 11A.
  
  The Departmental Representative argued that the appellants failed to file a classification list and follow various provisions of the Excise Act, thereby suppressing the fact of production of sinters in the factory. Hence, invoking Section 11A was justified.
  
  Given the finding that the process of sintering does not result in a new product, invoking Section 11A is not justified. The appellants did not suppress any facts warranting the invocation of this section.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The process of sintering manganese ore fines does not amount to manufacture as it does not result in a new product with a distinct name, character, or use. Consequently, the appellants are not liable for duty payment, and the applicability of Notifications No. 118/75 and 201/79 does not need further consideration. Invoking Section 11A is also not justified in this case. The cross-appeal by the Revenue is rejected.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 15