Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC385Tri(Delhi)
1. The merits of the dispute involved in the above-mentioned 4 appeals are admittedly not in issue before us in these proceedings in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K Spinning & Weaving Mills Lid.and Anr. v. Union of India A Others . The only issue which requires to be determined by us is that of limitation in respect of the demands in dispute.2. By its judgment in the J.K. Spinning A Weaving Mills Ltd. case, the Supreme Court upheld the retrospective amendment to Central Excise Rules 9 and 49 (the Central Excise Rules are hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which had the effect, inter alia, of making excisable goods removed from the place of their manufacture for manufacture of any other commodity within the said place or factory, liable to payment of Central Excise duty. The Court further held that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982, (which legislated the retrospective amendment) was subject to the provisions of Section HA of the Central Excises and Salt Act (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC377Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture Photo-copiers under the brand name Modi Xerox 1045. The goods fell under Item 33D of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The dispute in the present proceedings is on determination of assessable value of the machines for the purpose of assessment of Central Excise Duty. The period of controversy is from 04.03.1985 to 28.02.1986.2. The hearing in this case was concluded on 14.09.1988. Since, however, the appellants requested that the judgment should be issued only after the other two appeals No. E/411 & E/412/88-A filed by the department on the same issue for the subsequent period beginning 01.03.1986 were also heard and considered, the Bench reserved the judgment, agreed to the appellants' request for common consideration of the 3 appeals and commenced hearings in the 2 appeals of the department. Because of the acute shortage of Judicial Members in the Tribunal at Delhi, the hearings in the two appeals of the department could not progress much. They h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC179Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the adjudication order No.34/85-PREV. dated 2.8.1985 (issued on 6.9.85) passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, ordering the confiscation of seized goods under Section 111(d), (m) and (p) of the Customs Act,1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of confiscation and also to pay duty at the appropriate rate on the revised value.2. Factual backdrop: The appellants M/s Micro Electronics, Calcutta, inter-alia carries on business of manufacturing video cassettes in their factory at Calcutta, duly registered as a small scale Industrial Unit with the Directorate of Industrial, Cottage & Small Scale Industries, Govt. of West Bengal, Calcutta. They are duly licenced under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was the case of the department that on the secret information that the appellants illegally imported 5000 pcs. of complete Vedio Cassettes in the name of M/s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC39Tri(Delhi)
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of the appellants, while assessing the monthly RT 12 Returns of the appellants under Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, made 18 demands on the Returns from the month of March, 1976 to August, 1977. The Superintendent did so without issuing any show cause notice to the appellants and without hearing them. The demands, in all, totalled Rs. 4,93,480.68 and were communicated to the appellants during the period from 23-2-1977 to 12-9-1977. On 13-1-1978, the Superintendent sent them a reminder to pay the demands which were still outstanding. It was then that the appellants appealed to the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector, without granting a personal hearing (even though asked for by the appellants) dismissed the appeal as a nullity since it had been filed against the Superintendent's reminder and not against the original demands. The appellants are now in appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC85Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application filed by the appellants before the Government of India and which on transfer to this Tribunal is being treated as an appeal filed before the Tribunal. The appellants are aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture electric horns for motor vehicles and claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 71/78 and had made clearance of the horns to the tune of Rs. 4,96,760.20 upto GPI 82 dated 5.7.1982. The scrutiny of invoices, however, showed that they had collected Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,04,297.35 and which was not reflected in the value of the goods as shown in the Gate passes.2. The lower authorities after adding the duty element collected found that the appellants had made clearances in excess of the exempted limit of Rs. 5 lakh and duty to the tune of Rs. 21,222.10 was demanded from them under Rule 10 of the Central Ex cise Rules, 1944. A sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(22)LC438Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department. At the out-set, the respondents made a preliminary objection saying that the appeal was time-barred. They stated that they had received the impugned order-in-appeal at Bangalore on 29-4-1986. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise at Bangalore received it on 14-5-1986. How come the Collector of Central Excise at Bangalore received it as late as on 2-6-1986, asked the respondents. The Bench asked the learned representative of the department to produce the record of the Collector's office in order to verify the actual date of receipt of the impugned order-in-appeal by the Collector. At the resumed hearing, the learned representative of the department produced a photocopy of the impugned order-in-appeal as received by the Collector. The photo-copy bore a stamped inward entry number, Collector's dated stamp of receipt of 2-6-1986 and initials of a couple of officials dated 5-6-1986. There appeared to be no reason to doubt that the stamp and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC323Tri(Delhi)
1. In terms of Notification No. 108/78-CE dated 28.4.1978, issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, M/s. Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited (the respondents herein) were sanctioned a sum of Rs. 8,26,164.75 towards rebate on excess production of sugar for the season 1977-78. They were allowed to take credit of this amount in their Personal Ledger Account. The order of the proper officer was passed on 22.9.1978 and the credit was actually taken on 23.9.1978. On 18.5.1979, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a notice of miscellaneous demand in form DD2 to the respondents demanding a sum of Rs. 2,07,981.87. (A perusal of this notice shows that it is in the nature of peremptory demand rather than a show cause notice.) The Assistant Collector issued a notice on 14.1.1980 revising the amount to Rs. 2,11,612.35 and called upon the respondents to make any submissions against the demand. After holding adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Collector passed an order confirmi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC485Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, dispute is on the correct value of a consignment of 10.130 Metric Tonnes of Nickel Alloy Tubes Inconel 600 & 601 imported by the appellants in October 1984 against a contract entered into in July 1984. By the impugned order, the Collector held that the appellants were guilty under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for having under-declared the value of the goods at 2190.00 per Metric Tonne. Acting under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 (best judgment assessment rule) the Collector re-assessed the value of the goods on the basis of costing at 9,439.88 per Metric Tonne. The Collector ordered confiscation of the goods under the same Section and adjudged the fine in lieu of confiscation at Rs. 5 lakhs. In addition, the Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants under Section 112 of the Act. The appellants are in appeal against this order.2. When the matter came up before us first on 8-9-1988, we noticed that though the goods were ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(22)ECC255
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported goods described as film lined electrodes for batteries. The importers, before the Collector (Appeals), claimed the assessment of the goods under heading 85.18/27(1)CTA as against the classification done by the customs authorities under heading 85.03 CTA. There was no dispute as regards the assessment for C.V. duty purposes. The Collector (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal by a brief order which is reproduced below for convenience of reference : "The drawing and B/E copy produced by the appellants establish that the items imported are film lined electrodes for cells. These are nothing but battery carbons in the form of rods and battery carbon is specifically mentioned in tariff heading 85.18/27(1) CTA. As such the appeal is allowed with consequential refund benefits." 2. Against this order of the Collector (Appeals), the revenue have come up in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC100Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. ORG Systems, Wadiwadi, Dr. V.S. Marg, Baroda, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order-in-original No. 20/MP/85, dated 29th June, 1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda.Briefly the facts of the case as per revenue's version are that Messers ORG Systems (a Division of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.), Baroda, were engaged in the manufacture of "Computers" falling under Tariff Item 33 DD of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, under a Central Excise licence in form L-4 dated 14th May, 1984 held by them for the purpose and were getting the computers manufactured by supplying raw materials from two independent manufacturers, namely, (i) Messrs Digital Systems International, Baroda and (ii) Messrs Orbit Electronics, Baroda and were sold through Messrs Adprint Services Ltd., Baroda and the assessable value on which the duty was paid by these manufacturers of computers was considerably low in comparison to the value ultimately col...
Tag this Judgment!