Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC511Tri(Delhi)
1. Notice of hearing was sent to the respondents. The respondents vide their letter dated 27th January, 1989 had intimated to the Registry that the matter may be decided on the basis of their written statement of facts. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the appeal.2. Collector of Central Excise, Pune has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.3. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd., Kirloskarwadi supplied butterfly valves to the Bombay Municipal Corporation, Bombay along with gear box fitted and actuator as an accessory with a separate packing but under a common invoice. The respondents did not pay duty on the value of the actuator as the same was sent separately and was not a component part of butterfly valves.The butterfly valves could be operated manually as well as with the aid of electric power and the respondents were supplying two more attachments, namely, gear box electric actuator ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(22)ECC346
1. The only issue arising for determination in the present appeal is the classification under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter "the Schedule", for short) of "Synthetic Condensor Rubbing Aprons" imported by the appellants. The department classified them under heading No. 40.05/16 as articles of rubber and charged duty accordingly. The appellants' claim for classification of the goods under heading No. 84.37(1) as parts of textile machinery and for consequential refund of duty was rejected by the lower authorities.Hence this appeal.2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, DR, for the respondent-Collector and have perused the record.3. The appellants' contention is that the subject goods are parts of carding machines. A leaflet on "Condensor Rubbers", a photograph of the machine on which it is used and a write up by "WIRA - Technology and Productivity services for the Wool Textile Industry" have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(89)LC417Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order No. L-1278/BD-251/84 dated 13th July, 1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent, M/s. Amod Electricals, had filed two classification lists dated 16th September, 1983, viz., (1) covering bare copper wire finer than 2.00 mm (14 SWG), double paper covered copper wire finer than 2.00 mm (14 SWG) and transformer coils; and (2) bare aluminium wire finer than 3.25 mm (10 SWG), double paper covered aluminium wire finer than 3.25 mm (10 SWG) and transformer coils. They have classified the aforesaid six products under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and had claimed exemption under Notification No. 118/ 75-CE dated 30th April, 1975 (as amended) in respect of Bare and Double Paper Covered Copper Wire finer, than 2.00 mm as well as bare and double paper covered aluminium wire finer than 3.25 mm. Against trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(25)LC337Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order-in-appeal No. 116/86(6), dated 22nd July, 1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.In column No. 3 of the appeal memo the date of communication has been mentioned as 17th March, 1987. The matter had come up before the Bench for hearing on 16th May, 1988 and at the outset of the hearing Shri A.K. Jain, the learned advocate who had appeared on behalf of the respondent had stated that the order-in-appeal was passed on 22nd July, 1986 and the fair copy was attested on 17th September, 1986. On the objection of the advocate, the Bench had directed the appellant to file an affidavit in this regard supported with photo copies of the relevant records. In response the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, has filed an affidavit duly supported with the relevant records. Shri A.K.Jain has now submitted that the date of the order-in-appeal is 22nd July, 1986 and its communica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1991)LC138Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Usha Microprocess Controls Ltd., New Delhi, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of computers. They had filed a bill of entry in the Import Cargo Unit, C.W.C. Gurgaon Road, New Delhi on 11th August, 1983, registered at S.No. 31994, for the clearance of parts of graphic terminals, parts of floppy disk drives and cable etc. as per invoice attached to the said bill of entry, imported into India in one consignment covered under Airway Bill No. 229-1394-3718 (Kuwait Airways) executed on 7-7-1983 at Los Angeles. On examination of the said consignment conducted in the Air Cargo Unit in the presence of the representative of the appellants, it was found that the contents of the said consignment were, in fact, 75 complete units of Eagle IIE computers of models Eagle I, Eagle II and Eagle III in SKD condition 30 units each of Eagle I and Eagle II and 15 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC17Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Factual backdrop: During the course of Annual Stock taking on 23-12-1983 in respect of Cotton yarn and Cellulosic spun yarn of the appellants Mills, certain quantities of yarn were found deficient in excess of two percent, as compared to the recorded balance. As a follow up action a show cause notice calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why appropriate duty leviable on the deficiency be not demanded and penalty be not imposed, was issued. In reply it was contended that the alleged shortage was actually the losses in weight of yarn which do occur in the course of manufacture and due to normal causes of evaporation and dryage, and hence condonable. However, the Assistant Collector after the usual Adjudication proceedings allowed the condonation of deficiency upto 2.5 percent and consequently confirmed the demand of duty at appropriate rates leviable on the deficiency beyond ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC331Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-3-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi by which he had rejected the appellants appeal as time-barred.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned consultant appears for the appellants and submits that the Assistant Collector order in this case was received by them on 24-10-1986 but that they could file the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) only in December, 1987 and that this was because of the fact that they were pursuing their writ petition in the matter before the High Court and also before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decision was given on 5-10-1987. They have taken steps to file the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) thereafter. The learned consultant has urged that the appeal has been dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) without giving them an opportunity to explain the delay and they should be given such opportunity by remanding to case to that authority. He pointed out that in the order als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC508Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are M/s Continental Construction Ltd. They are engaged in the execution of large size turnkey construction projects awarded by various Government Authorities in India and abroad. They had undertaken an international contract for the construction of Wadi Ghan Dam in Libya and Karkh Water Supply Scheme-I in Iraq. On completion of the overseas projects in Libya and Iran they imported into India old and used construction equipment, machinery and accessories in 3 lots, which were purchased by them new in foreign exchange out of their overseas projects earnings and were used extensively for 8 to 10 years for construction work carried out abroad.1.1 Paragraph 213(5) of the I.T.C. policy for 1985-88 under the heading Project Exports, permits import of old and used equipments and machineries. In pursuance of the said policy they have imported vide bill of entry No. 2248/1 dated 31-8-1987 472 packages of construction equipment, machineries etc. used in the construction of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC283Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order issued on 3-9-1985 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I Division dated 16-4-1985 demanding a duty of Rs. 1,93,715.82 from the appellants as central excise duty on the goods cleared by them during the period April, 1983 to September, 1983. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of various Bituminous products. They filed an application with the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on 1-4-1983 seeking exemption under Notification 77/83, dated 1-3-1983 for the financial year 1983-84. The department, however, found on scrutiny that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods falling under Tariff Item 68 and Tariff Item 11 by the appellants had exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs during the preceding financial year 1982-83 and hence they were not eligible for the exemption. This is because para 2 of the Notification 77/83 lays do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(25)LC121Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Rajpura has preferred this appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 14/CE/ADE/87 dated 4-12-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) for alleged charges of committing irregularities in not maintaining of Central Excise records properly and non-accountal or rejected goods in RG-I as per procedure provided for in the Central Excise Rules.2. The brief facts of the case as Set out in the Show Cause notice dated 30-8-1986 issued by the Assistant Collector are that on 20-8-1986, the Customs and Central Excise Preventive staff, Patiala under the supervision of Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Patiala paid a surprise visit to the factory premises of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Rajpura and found the Central Excise records written upto date. During the course of verification of stocks, quantity of 571 CB Boxes of 'Rexona' soap (sub-head ing 3401/12 of Central Excis...
Tag this Judgment!