Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC116Tri(Delhi)
1.The two captioned appeals were filed before this Tribunal by M/s.Hindustan Photo Films (herein after referred to as HPF). These appeals were against the orders alleged to have been passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay on 5-6-1989 (appeal No. C/1934/89-A) and passed by the Collector of Customs, Rajkot on 31-1-1989.2. The appeals arose as a consequence of the imports by M/s. Northern Plastics Ltd. New Delhi (herein after referred to as Northern Plastics) of rolls of cinematographic colour films. It is the case of HPF that the goods were infact jumbo rolls, that they were wrongly valued and that the rate of duty was also wrong in so far as importation at Rajkot, consisting of 59 rolls described as cinematographic colour films, was concerned. Northern Plastics produced an import licence and claimed benefit of two exemption Notifications. The Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot, after due process rejected the claim for concession and released the goods on payment of duty.3. The imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(25)LC207Tri(Delhi)
1. The following interesting question arose for our determination when the case was taken up for hearing in the circumstances mentioned hereinafter - "Whether the oral Order pronounced by the Bench on 19-4-1988 in the open Court allowing the appeal with the remark that 'Order to follow1 amounts to an 'Order' passed by the Appellate Tribunal within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944." 2. Circumstances leading to the present controversy are that being dissatisfied with the order of recovery of Rs. 1,13,802.62 from the appellants M/s. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Walterganj, Basti, they filed their present appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter for short 'Act').The same was heard on merits by the Special Bench of the Tribunal consisting of Shri S.D. Jha, Vice-President (Judicial) and S/Shri I.J.Rao and D.C. Mandal, both Technical Members on 19-4-1988. After hearing the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)ECC167
1. The appellant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II has challenged in this appeal the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in SKM 203/B-II-413/88 which has arisen from the order in original No. V(68)Cell 302/85/3800, dated 3-5-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Division VII, Bombay II. The appellant has sought the restoration of the order-in-original by setting aside the impugned order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents namely, M/s.Dowells Elektro Works, Bombay hereinafter to be referred to as Respondents are manufacturers of Cable Terminals and Sockets, Wire pins, In-line connectors, Ferrules and Snap-on terminals (hereinafter referred to as products). The respondents had filed the classification list classifying the above products under Chapter sub-heading No.8548.00 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)LC264Tri(Delhi)
1. Issue, which is common in all these appeals, is whether carbide sludge can be classified as 'manufactured goods' and whether it is excisable. So we dispose of all these three appeals by this common order.2. The assessee has been asked to pay excise duty of Rs. 1,17,447/- for removal of carbide sludge for the period from 1-9-1982 to 26-11-1985 by the order dated 5-10-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur which has given rise to appeal No. E/09/89-C.Subsequently, the said assessee has been asked to pay ' Rs. 8,6407- by way of excise duty on clearance of carbide sludge from 2-6-1987 to 14-9-1987 by the Assistant Collector (Central Excise) and the said order has been confirmed by the ld. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Calcutta vide his Order-in-Appeal No.178/BR/85 dated 15-4-1985.The said order has given rise to the Appeal No. E/364/89-C.3. In Appeal No. E/1820/85-C, Jurisdictional Assistant Collector classified carbide sludge as excisable goods ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)ECC150
G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) for himself and for Harish Chander, Member (J), I.J. Rao, Member (T) and D.C. Mandal, Member (T) 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal No.86/WB/82 dated 18-3-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector, Customs & Central Excise, Calcutta. (i) That the impugned order-in-appeal was passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta on 18-3-1982. (ii) That the present appeal filed by the department against the impugned order-in-appeal was received in the Registry on 23-12-1982 without any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (iii) That at the time when the impugned order-in-appeal was passed by the Appellate Collector on 18-3-1982 there was no provision for appeal in the Central Excises & Salt Act. However, the Central Government was conferred with the revisional power under erstwhile section 36(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act either suo motu or otherwise to call for and examine the record of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC88
1. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara, has filed appeals being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Since the issue involved is similar and as such both the appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Manibhai and Brothers (Sleepers), Kharasalia, Post Vejelpur, District Panchamahals are engaged in the manufacture of Monoblock Prestressed concrete sleepers in their factory and supply the same to the Railways, falling under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff had opted for invoice base value under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. It appeared to the Railway Superintendent that the respondent had not included the value of malleable cast iron inserts which were supplied free of cost by the Railways for fixing as integral part of the sleepers manufactured by the respondents. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents. The learned Assistant Collector had confirmed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(25)LC113Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against Order- in-Original No. 34/86 dated 21-10-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi by which he - (a) ordered M/s. Satyakam Rasayan Udyog, Delhi (the "appellants") to pay excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,82,005.10; (c) confiscated certain seized goods allowing them, however, to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 6,500/- in lieu of confiscation plus the appropriate amount of duty leviable thereon.2. The facts of this case, briefly stated, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Phenol Formaldehyde moulding powder ("PF moulding powder") under Central Excise licence, availing themselves of duty exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 83/83. The total value of clearances recorded in the simplified account register for the year 1982-83 was Rs. 6,18,300. On 4-8-1983, excise officers visited the factory and, on verification of the stocks with the recorded balance in the R.G. 1 register, found 30 bags of 50 kgs. each of PF ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(47)ELT286TriDel
1. E/Misc./124/88-B.I. - This is an application seeking to include certain additional grounds which are to be added after Para 26 of the memorandum of appeal. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned consultant is not pressing the point numbered as para 26 B in the Misc. application. He, however, urged for the inclusion of para numbered 26 A for being taken on record as additional ground. This relates to the validity of the Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules at a time when that Rule was not in existence and also raises the question of jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise to demand short levy under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We find that the points are relating to legal aspect. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri Arora has no objection. Therefore, the additional ground numbered as para 26 A is allowed.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-8-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC674Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is against the order dated 10.3.1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay relating to the assessment of a car imported by the appellant herein Maj. K.C. Kapur, 2. Maj. Kapur imported a Toyota Corona Car when he returned to India after residing abroad for five years. The Ship, State of Tripura by which the car was shipped arrived at Bombay Port on 22nd February, 1986. It was also berthed at the Port on 25/26 Feb., 1986 with IGM No.388/26. Some cargo was unloaded and the ship was thereafter taken off berth, with the result that on 26.2.1986 the appellant's car was not actually unloaded from the ship. The ship was again brought back to berth on 5.3.1986. In the Bill of Entry IGM number was amended to 424/26 when the car was unloaded. On 1.3.1986 there was an increase in the duty applicable and as a result this increased rate of duty was applied considering the import as having be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC472
1. This appeal is against the order dated 10-3-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay relating to the assessment of a car imported by the appellant herein Maj, K.C. Kapur.2. Maj. Kapur imported a Toyota Corona Car when he returned to India after residing abroad for five years. The Ship, State of Tripura by which the car was shipped arrived at Bombay Port on 22-2-1986. It was also berthed at the Port on 25/26-2-1986 with IGM No. 388/26. Some cargo was unloaded and the ship was thereafter taken off berth, with the result that on 26-2-1986 the appellant's car was not actually unloaded from the ship. The ship was again brought back to berth on 5-3-1986. In the Bill of Entry IGM number was amended to 424/26 when the car was unloaded. On 1-3-1986 there was an increase in the duty applicable and as a result this increased rate of duty was applied considering the import as having been effected on...
Tag this Judgment!