Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Cestat Calcutta Court October 2001 Judgments Home Cases Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Cestat Calcutta 2001 Page 3 of about 82 results (0.110 seconds)

Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. The prayer in the Stay petition is for dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs. 6,60,28,325.10 and an equivalent amount of personal penalty imposed upon he appellants under the provisions of Section 11AC along with determination of interest at the rate of 20%.2. Shri K.K. Banerjee, ld.Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that the said demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellants in respect of their two final products manufactured by them i.e. Lal Tail and Janma Ghuti. In respect of Lal Tail. He submits that the appellants had been clearing the said product since long by classifying the same under Chapter 30 as Ayurvedic medicines. An objection was raised by the Revenue in or around January 1999 that the said Lal Tail would be properly classifiable under heading 3304.00 attracting higher rate of duty. Thereafter, eight show-cause notices were issued on various dates raising demand of duty for the past period. Apart from submitting that ...

P. Manicka Chettiar, P. Muthera, Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P), West

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. When the matter came up for hearing today, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, our attention has been drawn to the letter written by one Advocate, Shri J.Radhakrishnan praying for adjournment to the last week of November, 2001 or in December 2001. No reasons have been given in the said letter as to what is the difficulties on the part of the appellants to cause appearance today before the Tribunal.From records, we also note that on the last date of hearing i.e.18.9.2001, the one, Shri T.A. Rangarajan, Consultant appeared and sought adjournment on the ground that the matter has to be argued by the Senior Advocate, Shri B.Kumar, who was not available on account of being away from Chennai and on account of his professional pre-engagement. The Stay Petitions were adjourned to today.Accordingly, after rejecting the request for adjournment, we take up the Stay Petitions. Accordingly, we have heard the ld.JDR, Shri D.K.Bhowmik, for the Revenue and have gone through the i...

Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. The show-cause notice was issued to the present appellant among others, pursuant to an enquiry launched after search conducted at the factory premises of M/s. Peacock Plywood (P) Ltd., Panchghara, Hoogly District who are registered manufacturer under the Central Excise Act.Consequent to the enquiries conducted and the hearings granted by the Commissioner, he came to a finding that a demand of duty of Rs. 61,47,058.00 in terms of provisio to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was payable and he ordered the appropriation of amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- already paid by the assessee and demanded the remaining amount of duty, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 61,47,058 on the assessee in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and or Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules and demanded interest in terms of Section 11AB. A penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- was imposed on Shri A.K.Jain, authorised signatory of M/s. Peacock Plywood (P) Ltd. in terms of Rule 209A of the Central Excise R...

Chariot Cement Company, Rajesh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellants consequent to stock challenge conducted when it was found that the despatches from the railway yard which is about 12 Km. away from their factory premises, certain despatches have been made by Railway Rakes and wagon loads especially to Dimapur. These quantifies appeared to be not covered by the clearance made to be railway yard from the factory premises.2. Consequent to this findings proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice was issued which was adjudicated and the duty demand of Rs. 90,44,735/- was determined on such movement of cement noticed from the railway yard which were not covered by the duty paying clearance of cement by the appellants. A penalty of similar amount under Section 11AC and penalty under Rule 209A was imposed on two employees. (a) Since it is their own case that at Dimapur, they do not have any buyers, depots or other business establishment or removal prima-facie they do not have a good case. Therein d...

Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2002)(149)ELT558Tri(Kol.)kata

1. The appellant is aggrieved with the confiscation of his truck with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The appellant is a driver-cum-owner of the truck which was intercepted by the Police Authorities on 3.5.99. As per the facts on record, when the truck was signalled to stop by the Police Authorities, the driver accelerated the speed. The truck was chased and finally nabbed. Search of the said truck resulted in recovery of Video Cassettes, Compressors and Air Conditioners of Japanese made.Accordingly, the officers seized the goods along with the truck and the documents recovered from the said truck.3. During the post seizure investigation, it was found that the original number of the truck was HP-20/5748 but the Number Plate affixed to the truck showed the same as UVA-3684. The two sets of registration papers belonging to the original number as also of different truck No. HP-24C/0391 ...

Terai Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port),

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Reported in : (2002)(141)ELT394Tri(Kol.)kata

1. Appellants have filed shipping Bills for export to claim logging endorsements for DEEC Licence applied by them. The goods were ready-made garments of which samples were taken, they were assessed, examined, samples drawn and 'Let Export' orders passed. However, the dispute arose at the time of logging on that the denier of the yarn used in the fabric was not mentioned on the bills. The appellant was contending that it was not mandatory so to mention the denier on the shipping bills, while the Department insisted on such a mention. During this period of dispute, the validity period of the DEEC licence expired. The appellant, therefore, applied for conversion of these Shipping Bills, under DEEC export, to Drawback Claim Shipping Bills, as provided for vide Circular NO. 74/97 as amended. This Circular allows conversion of a Free Shipping Bills, as provided for vide Circular No.74/98 as amended. This Circular allows conversion of a Free Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bills and pres...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Asiatic Oxygen and Acetylene Co.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. We have heard Shri D.K. Bhowmik, ld. JDR for the Revenue and Shri K.G. Chowdhury, ld. Asst. Manager (Accounts & Legal) for the respondents.2. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna vide his order-in-original accepted the classification filed by the respondents in respect of Carbide Sludge falling under heading 3823.00. Revenue filed an appeal against the above order of the Asst. Commissioner before Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that the Correct classification of Carbide Sludge is under heading 3824.90. Before Commissioner (Appeals) respondents took a plea that in view of the various judgments of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court Carbide Sludge was not excisable. Their submission, as summed up in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is as follows:- "In his submissions he stated that they are not manufacturing carbide sludge but the same is a waste which is arising during the course of manufacture of dissolved acetylene with the reaction of water and ca...

Steel City Beverages Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. The impugned Order confirming demand of duty of Rs. 9,82,772.00 has been passed by the Commissioner in de novo proceedings. The matter was originally adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his Order-in Original No. 22-MP-85 dated 26.6.85 which was set aside by the Tribunal vide the Final Order No. 53/94-A and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication.2. Arguing on the Stay Petition, Shri S.S. Jha, learned Consultant submits that a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh) was deposited by the appellant firm in terms of the Stay Order No. 823/94-A dated 19.11.85 vide Miscellaneous Order No. 162/91-A dated 3.6.91 at the time of admission of the original appeal against the earlier Order-in-Original dated 26.6.85 passed by the Commissioner. He submits that the said amount has not been refunded to the appellant firm till date and is still lying with the Revenue. In this view of the matter, he prays that the balance amount of duty be dispensed with.4. In view of th...

Hindustan National Bag and Burlap Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. After dispensing with the condition of predeposit, we take up the appeals itself with the consent of both sides, inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla in violation of the principles of natural justice.2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri S. Mehta, learned Advocate and Shri D.K. Bhowmick, learned J.D.R., we find that only one date of hearing was fixed by the Commissioner as on 26.12.2000. Notice for the same was sent from Kandla to all the appellants who are situated in Kolkata, vide the Commissionerate's Office Letter dated 13.12.2000. The appellants vide their letter dated 27.12.2000 informed the Commissioner that the said notice of hearing had been received by them only on 26.12.2000 i.e. the date of hearing itself. Thereafter, the impugned Order was passed without giving any other opportunity to the appellants to present their case in person. As such, we are of the view that the impugned Order suffers from viola...

i.B. Valley Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

1. The short point involved in the present appeal is as to whether the steel cassettes manufactured by the appellants with the brand name of their customers, would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE. The lower authorities have held that the benefit is not available inasmuch as the cassettes are apparently directly used by M/s. Tata Refractories and sold as their product. However, it is the contention of the learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Banerjee appearing for the appellants that in the subsequent proceedings, the original adjudicating authority has himself held that it is not the cassettes which are being sold by M/s. Tata Refractories and it is the product manufactured by M/s. Tata Refractories, which is further brought to the market for being bought and sold. The goods being manufactured by the appellants. i.e.steel cassettes, are not traded and hence they are not hit by the mischief of para 7 of the Notification in question. By observing so, the Deputy Commission...