Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(116)LC681Tri(Kol.)kata
1. This appeal has been filed against the order in original No.25/Commr./2003 dated 31.3.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. In brief facts of the case are that appellant is one of the listed supplier of M/s. Coca Cola Co. and was manufacturing various brand of Aerated water of Coca Cola Co. During the period 1.3.1994 to 31.10.1995 the said brand of Aerated water was manufactured out of Non-Alcoholic Beverages basis purchased from M/s. Bitco Foods Co. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Coca Cola Ltd. during investigation it revealed that during the above stated period B.F.C.L.has shared marketing, advertising and sales promotion expenses with the assessee and had reimbursed an amount of Rs. 28, 61, 790.00 to the assessee on this account by way of issuing credit note. A show cause notice was issued and Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 13,38,052.00 vide his order dated 31st March, 2003. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(174)ELT65Tri(Kol.)kata
1. This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V, against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata on 31st July, 2003, by which he set aside the impugned order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell, Kolkata-I.2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. The Incoda, 1/A Jatin Bagchi Road, Kolkata 700029, is authorized by the Metro Railway to install, maintenance and display of advertisements inside the coaches on rental basis. They in turn display the advertisement supplied to them by their Clients. The assessee applied for Service Tax Registration as "Advertiser" which was granted by the Department on 6th January, 1999.Thereafter, the assessee on 9th February, 1999, requested for cancellation of the Registration. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Service Tax Cell, vide his letter dated 15th October, 2001, rejected his request. M/s. The Incoda, preferred this appeal against the order passed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(116)LC683Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The present appeal filed by M/s. C.I. Laboratories (here-in-after referred to as the appellant company) against the Order-in-Appeal No.018/KOL-II/2003 dated 11.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata-II, wherein he has set aside the Order of the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Assistant Commissioner in his Order has dropped a demand of Rs. 1,47,730.00 (Repees one lakh forty-seven hundred and thirty) arising out of re-classification of the goods. The appellants manufactured Glycerine I.P., Potassium Permanganate I.P./B.P., Dextrose Monohydrate I.P., Emulsifying Wax B.P. and Rishisol. These goods were initially cleared as Medicaments (Medicinal Grade Bulk Drug under Chapter 30) as per approved Classification List. The Classification List was approved on 23.6.1992. The Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 25.1.1995 proposing recovery of the differential duty worth Rs. 1,47,730.00 (Rupees one lakh forty-seven thousa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC31
1. The present appeal filed by M/s. Creative Products Pvt. Ltd. is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 222/KOL-V/2003 dated 29.8.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata. M/s.Creative Products Pvt. Ltd. (here-in-after called as the appellant company) are a manufacture of paper and paper-board. On a surprise visit, certain shortage of inputs was found in comparison with the recorded stock in RG-23A Part-I by the Central Excise Officers on 19.1.95. The Modvat Credit had been taken without adjusting the shortages. The appellant company has filed this appeal mainly on the ground that waste and scrap claimed by the appellant company, has been duly explained and there was no case of payment of extra duty on this account. Secondly, the Appellate Commissioner should have accepted the plea of the appellant company that certain shortages were on account of waste and scrap arising in accordance with the manufacture of the finished products. The claim of the appellant com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC22
1. The present appeal is directed against the Order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong by M/s. Jellalpore Tea Estate (here-in-after called 'the appellant company'). In the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner has confirmed a demand of Rs. 16,09,687.00 (Rupees sixteen lakh nine thousand six hundred and eighty-seven) only, under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has not imposed any penalty. The facts of the case are as follows: 1.1. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Silchar, provisionally sanctioned a refund of Rs. 16,09,585.00 (Rupees sixteen lakh nine thousand five hundred and eighty-five) covering the period from October 2000 to March 2002 on 30.4.2002, under Notification No.33/99-CE dated 8.7.99. Under this Notification, exemption from duty to units set up in North-Eastern India after 24.12.97 and also to existing units to make expansion by 25% or more after 24.12.97, was granted. The appellant company completed expansion of more ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(96)ECC561
1. This appeal has boon filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Patna on 18.3.2003.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Twisted Bars. They were covered under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 during the period from September 1997 to March 2000. After the withdrawal of the compound levy scheme w.e.f. 1.4.98, the appellants had availed the modvat credit on inputs lying in their factory from which they would be manufacturing excisable goods and paying the duty under the provisions of Section 3 and availed modvat credit of Rs. 17,01,482.19 on 1260.348 M.T. and also taken credit of Rs. 4,976 on the furnace oil lying in their factory as on 31st March, 2000. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mead Qrs., Patna, disallowed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 7,56,221 and confirmed the demand and interest at the rate of Rs. 24 under Section 11AA of CEA, 194...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(174)ELT270Tri(Kol.)kata
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, BBSR-II on 16th September, 2003 by which he had rejected the application made by the appellants for abatement claim under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Acharya, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR for the Revenue.3. In the present case, the abatement claim of the appellant was previously rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, BBSR-II vide Order No. 1/1999 communicated under letter C. No.IV(30)43/Tech/BBSR-11/98/2247A, dated 11th February, 1999. The appellants preferred appeal against this Order before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Order No. A-1130-Cal/2000, dated 26-7-2000, had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision after allowing the assessee to putforth his defence.4. Ld. Advocate, Shri Acharya submits that the main contention of the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(116)LC765Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue relates to the correct classification of the product namely, 'Dant Mukta', imported by the appellant company from Nepal and to be used as raw material for the manufacture of Lal Dant Manjan. Whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the respondent company's contention of classification of the said product under Chapter Heading 33.06 of C.T.A., 1975 and C.E.T.A., 1985, the Revenue has contended in their appeal that the same is classifiable under heading No. 3003.39.2.We have Shri J.R. Madhiam, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, who has reiterated the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Commissioner. Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, learned Advocate for the respondent company has submitted a copy of this Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Patna v. M/s. Sant Product Ltd. and Ors., vide Order No. A-48-51/KOL/2004 dated 22.1.2004, wherein the same product has been classified under 33.06 of CTA, 1975 and C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(96)ECC573
1. The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/94/CKP/2003, dated 16-9-2003 by M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata. The issue in the present appeal relates to the admissibility of the Refund Claim filed by the appellant company. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported mechanical spares & presented Bill of Entry dated 26-7-2000 and paid the duty amount of Rs. 8,35,563.00 (Rupees eight lakh thirty-five thousand five hundred and sixty-three) on the assessment thereof. However, on examination of the goods, it was found that the goods were different from that declared/mentioned in the invoice/Bill of Entry/Packing List.The appellants relinquished the title on the goods. They also stated that they had got no objection if the Customs allowed the foreign supplier or their authorised representative to send back the goods wrongly supplied to them. They submitted that the goods were never cleared from the Customs Control and were not receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2005)(98)ECC61
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata on 13th January, 2004.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of import and during course of business of 2nd July, 2002, he entered into an agreement with Galaxy Enterprise, Hongkong, for import of plastic body, plastic lens camera at a unit price U.S.$ .41.Pursuant to the said agreement, Galaxy Enterprise of Hongkong despatched the consignment of plastic body, plastic lens camera packed in 750 cartons and forwarded the Bill of Landing, Insurance Policy, Invoice, Packing List and Certificate of Origin. On 24th July, 2002, the said consignment arrived at Kolkata Port. The Bill of Entry was duly assessed by the Customs Authorities and the goods were examined by the Customs Authorities on 13th August, 2002 and the same were found to be corresponding to the declaration made by the appellant in the said Bill of Entry. On specific intelligenc...
Tag this Judgment!