Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. In this stay petition a prayer has been made for dispensing with the predeposit of penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed on Shri Ram Lal Sah of Raxaul under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Order-in-Original No. 39-Cal/96 dt.19.4.96 of Deputy Commissioner of Customs(Prev.) INB, Mujaffarpur which was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.172/PAT/Cal/Appeal/2000 dt.25.5.2000.2. This is a case where silver bars were seized on the alleged ground that they were smuggled into the country. The seizure was made in the premises of Shri Sadashiv Bombaywala. At the time of seizure Shri Sadashiv Bombaywala stated that the silver bars were of foreign origin and the same were kept in his premises by Shri Ram Lal Sah. The Customs officers could not contact Shri Ram Lal Sah and as such his statement could not be recorded. However, the local silver dealers opined that the seized silver bars were of foreign origin. The adjudication proceedings initiated against Shr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. In this Stay Petition, prayer has been made for dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty of Rs.19,742/- demanded and penalty of Rs.1,000/- imposed on M/s Hind Chemicals, Kolkata vide Order-in-Original No.01/Demand/99 dated 6.1.99 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dum Dum Division which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.114/Cal-III/99 dated 23.5.2000.2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhaya, learned Consultant appearing for the applicatns/appellants, submits that the appellants are manufacturers of Sodium Silicate. Soda Ash is the main raw material for manufacture of sodium silicate. When the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellant company on 22.9.95, they noticed that a quantity of 13,750 kgs. Of 'Soda Ash' valued at Rs. 98,712.50 which was duly entered in RG-23A Part I was not physically present in the factory.When the officers questioned the proprietor Shri Sanjay Goenka on the spot, he explained that the said quant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT350Tri(Kol.)kata
1. In these two stay petitions - one filed by M/s. Suraj Containers Ltd. and the other Md.M.D.Hadish, driver of the truck No.WBB 9045 a prayer has been made for dispensing with predeposit of penalty of Rs.7500/- imposed upon M/s. Suraj Containers Ltd. and an equal amount of penalty imposed on Md.M.D.Hadish under section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 read with 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide Order-in-Original dt.26.8.96 which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide his order-in-appeal no.133/Cal-I/99 dt.29.2.2000.2. This is a case where tin containers were seized in a truck when the same were being transported under cover of the invoices and challans bearing a different date than the date of actual removal. A show cause notice was issued to the company as well as to the driver of the vehicle. The adjudication proceedings resulted in confiscation of the said goods giving option to M/s. Suraj Containers to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(137)ELT532Tri(Kol.)kata
1. In this miscellaneous application the applicant seeks rectification of mistake in the Order No.A-1935-Cal/2000 dt.27.11.2000 of this Bench of the Tribunal.2. Shri Jyoti Agarwal, arguing himself, submits that in the appeal a prayer was made for a specific relief in the form of interest to be paid to him on the Indian currency of Rs.33,500/- which was seized by the department for alleged violation of the provisions of the Foreign Trade(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. He points that despite the said prayer, the Tribunal's order dt.27.11.2000 did not contain any direction in that regard. In this connection, he invites attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ram Kumar Kamal Kumar v.CCE, Calcutta: 1999(112)ELT 937(T), in which, under similar circumstances, interest was allowed on the seized amount and the MA(ROM) filed in that case was allowed by way of inserting an additional paragraph to the Tribunal's earlier order dt.27.11.98. He, therefore, prays that similar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(76)ECC351
1.1 The appellants entered into a contract on 15.11.96 with M/s.Pirelli Co-Ordinamento-Pneumatici S.P.A., Italy (herein after referred to as Pirelli) for import of various machinery and spare parts at the price of Italian Lira 4233,000,000. This was required by the appellants for setting up the facilities for manufacture of radial tyres. Apart from the machinery and equipments to be imported from Pirelli and other foreign suppliers, various casting machinery and equipments at the appellants' factory were also to be utilised. Some of the machinery and equipments were to be procured from indigenous sources. Annexure III to the said contract, gives the details of the items of machinery, equipments and spares along with their respective prices. Pirelli was also required to supply to the appellants technical documentation of each machinery for planing and preparation of the drawings for civil works and for erection and setting up of the machinery including instruction manuals etc.. The cos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(133)ELT815Tri(Kol.)kata
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.Cal.Cus.3.7/99 dated 9.6.99 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta in which the first stage appeal of M/s Lohia Machinery Manufacturers, New Delhi was rejected.2. The issue for consideration is whether the document submitted by the appellants could be considered as a valid certificate of the DGTD for availing benefit of customs duty exemption under Notification No.317/87-Cus dated 17.9.1987 in respect of the imported Die cast Mould suitable for part No.FT-005-563-0 and the appellants are eligible for refund of Rs.1,65,995/- paid by them at the time of its clearance from Customs.3. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported a consignment consisting of two items, viz., (i) one set Die Casting Mould suitable for Part No.FT-005-563-0, and (ii) one set Mould suitable for Part No.Ft-004-024-0 vide Bill of Entry No.AI-112 dated 6.10.90. The goods were assessed under Customs tariff Sub-heading 8480.49 read with Notific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.54/2000 dated 15.9.2000 of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta a "Tug" (brought into India for the purpose of salvage operation) along with the items on board thereof being the conumsables, viz., cigarettes and HSD Gas Oil, and salvage equipments including wires, stretches, chains, shackls, snath blocks, chain lever block, gaff sockets and other miscellaneous items, were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the same were imported without a Special Import Licence and allowed redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs.20,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- on M/s Forbes Gokak Ltd. (Patvolk Division), Kolkata.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the vessel M.V.Prime Value had run aground south of sandheads on 19.7.2000 and was awaiting rescue/salvage operations. The owners of the vessels appointed M/s Smit International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore to do necessary salva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT76Tri(Kol.)kata
1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is the same.2. The short point required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether waterproof fabrics being manufactured by the appellants are properly classifiable under heading 52.07 or the same are to be classified under heading 59.06. The Department's contention is that the waterproof fabrics were "coated" fabrics and fall under Chapter 59. On the other hand, the appellants' view is that the water-proofing is a distinct process mentioned in heading 52.07 and the same does not lead to coating for which there is a layer formation on the fabrics. As such, the appellants' stand is that waterproof fabric is falling under Chapter 52 attracting nil rate of duty during the relevant period.3. For the above contention, the appellants have referred to the Board's Circular Nos.6/91 dated 11.4.91 and 254/88-96-CX dated 18.10.96. It is their contention that the waterproof cotton canvas/cloth did not have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT285Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The issue for consideration is whether, for the purpose of approval of price lists in Part II, prices backed by purchase orders could be considered as "contract price" in the absence of specific contracts entered into with different class of buyers - wholesale dealers and industrial consumers.2. The facts of the case in brief are that M/s Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd. Rayagada are manufacturers of Ferro manganese falling under sub-heading 7202.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. They filed price lists in part II in which different prices were charged to different buyers. They submitted purchase orders along with the price lists. The same were returned to the appellant on 12.9.90 to resubmit along with copies of contracts. They very next day they resubmitted the same without copies of contracts stating that it was difficult for them to enter into contract with the buyers. They stated that almost all their customers were industrial consumers except a few agents. The Central Excise Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. The Revenue has prayed for staying the operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) vide which the benefit has been given to the respondents. We do not find any justifiable reason for allowing the stay petition of the Revenue.Accordingly the same is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!