Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)ECC76
1. The only point which arises for our consideration in the instant appeal is - "Whether the di-calcium phosphate manufactured and cleared by the appellants was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 55/75 as amended by Notification No. 221/79, dated 30-6-1979." The appellants M/s. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd. Kathikudam are licensed under T.I. 68 to manufacture Ossein and Di-calcium Phosphate.The process of manufacture, as declared by the appellants is as follows: "Crushed animal bones duly cleaned are pumped to the acid bath where it is treated with HC1 acid. Calcium Phosphate Carbonate and other mineral matters in the bones are dissolved in the acid leaving behind the organic matter - Ossein. The dissolved minerals are pumped out in the form of acid solution to the DSP reactor. Lime slurry prepared in the suspension tank is also fed to this reactor to neutralise the acid solution. Di-calcium Phosphate is then precipitated. The supernatant liquid after the reaction, is si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC601Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s Mani's Press Tools Corporation, Bangalore have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s J.B. Advani & Co. Pvt.Ltd., Bombay, presented a post bill of entry No. 1998/82 dated 19-1-1979 and claimed clearance of the goods on account of M/s Mani's Press Tools Corporation, Bangalore and the goods were originally imported for exhibition in Imptex Fair and subsequently sold to M/s Mani's Press Tools Corporation, Bangalore who claimed clearance of the goods under OGL in terms Serial No. 4, Part A of Appendix 2 of AM 79-80 Policy Book. They also claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 40/78, dated 1-3-1978. As per the said Notification "Tools Room Precision Optical Co-ordinate Jig Boring Machine including Numerical (Control)" can be allowed under concessional rate of 25% ad valorem. The appellants have filed a catalogue for the goods imported, namely (1) Aciera Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)ECC81
1. The Collector in the order impugned before us demanded duty of Rupees 12.58 lakhs from the appellants (for the period from May 1985 to December 1986) confiscated four bundles of sheets, with an option for redemption, imposed a penalty of Rs. one lakh and confiscated the land, building and machinery with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The facts in brief resulting in the said order of the Collector are as under: 2. M/s. Lili Foam Pvt. Ltd. is a small-scale unit engaged in the manufacture of polyurethene foam. The appellant company commenced production some time in May 1985 though originally set up in May 1984.A team of Central Excise Officers visited the premises of M/s. Lili Foam Industries on 8-12-1986. Certain quantities of foam was found in excess of what was recorded in RG-1. The said quantities were seized by the visiting Officers. Also, certain accounts and documents were seized under a Mahazar on the same day. Statements were recorded from Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(44)ELT162TriDel
1. The only issue arising for determination in the present appeal is the classification under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, of "White Lead" of various descriptions manufactured by the respondents. The Assistant Collector classified the products under Heading No. 2805.90 of the Schedule. The Collector (Appeals), however, set aside this order and classified the goods under Heading 2804.60.The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II, being aggrieved with this order has come up in appeal.2. Despite notice of hearing, the respondents were not represented before us when the appeal was heard on 3-8-1989. We have, therefore, heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, DR, for the appellant-Collector and perused the record.3. "White Lead" is described as a lead carbonate, basic, designated by the formula 2Pb CO3.Pb(OH2 in the "Condensed Chemical Dictionary" (Tenth Edition) by Gessner G. Hawley (page 606). "White Lead", also according to page 292 of the Explanatory Notes under Heading...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC545Tri(Delhi)
1. The only issue arising for determination in the present appeal is whether Polycarbonate Tubes (Bottle Guards) imported by the appellants were correctly classifiable under heading No. 84.19 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as it stood at the material time (as claimed by the appellants) or under Heading 39.01/06 as ordered by the Collector (Appeals) by the impugned order.2. We have heard Shri J. Vellapally, Advocate with Shri S.K. Goyal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. CDR for the respondent-Collector.3. In the order placed on the foreign suppliers for the goods, they are described as Transparent Polycarbonate extruded pipes of dimensions 63.5 MM OD X 61.5 MM ID X 210 MM. The goods were supplied under invoice dated 24-9-1984 and were described therein as Bottle Guards Part No.18306 Drawing No. SR 30 (material extruded Polycarbonate). The goods were similarly described in the Bill of Entry for home consumption with further amplification "compon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)ECC288
1. These two appeals and the Cross Objection arise out of the same order of the Collector (Appeals) Madras dated 19-2-1985 and relate to a common issue. Appeal No. E/1460/85-A has been preferred by M/s Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. with Cross Objection by the Collector, whereas the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore himself is the appellant in Appeal No. E/2958/ 85-A. Briefly, the facts are that M/s Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. manufacture soap, detergent products etc. The soap manufactured by them is assessable under the erstwhile Tariff Item 15-CET. They used rice bran oil in the manufacture of washing soap and claimed concession of Excise duty under Notification No. 25/75-C.E., dated 1-3-75. This notification is one which seeks to give exemption of duty on the soap manufactured from indigenous rice bran oil or from a mixture of such oil in order to serve as an incentive for use of rice bran oil. The department found, on scrutiny of the price list and other duty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)ECC91
1.1. The respondents, the Joint Sector Public Limited Company of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, manufactures a product known as asphalt corrugated roofing sheets (hereinafter referred to as ACR sheets). The factory of the respondents was established in 1970 and started its production in 1971. The process of manufacture of ACR sheets is described as follows in the appeal filed by the appellant-Collector :- "Waste paper obtained from road pickings is covered into pulp and formed into sheets. These paper sheets are dried in the sun and corrugated by the machine. These corrugated paper sheets are also called as 'Base Mats'. These base mats are impregnated with asphalt and finally painted with aluminium paste. The final product is known and marketed as ACR sheets. Thus the corrugated boards after impregnating with asphalt are conferred with special properties of thickness. Water proof, fire resistance, and therefore are specially treated paper boards." 1.2. On 25-5-1974, the Superintend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(45)ELT424TriDel
1. The question for consideration is whether packing charges of white cement cleared by the appellants are includible in the assessable value.2. The white cement manufactured by the appellants is marketed by them in bags purchased from the market and made of kraft paper laminated with hessian which have already suffered duty of excise. After hearing the objections on a show cause notice dated 18th Feb., 1970 issued by the Range Officer demanding an amount of Rs. 36,548.18. basic excise duty and Rs. 7,309.64 special duty by including the packing charges the Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal the Collector remanded the matter for consideration afresh. Thereafter a fresh show cause notice was issued on 13th August, 1973 and the demand was confirmed.The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Collector.3. Against the orders of the Collector, the appellants filed a writ petition OP No. 4499/1974 in the High Court of Kerala for quashing the orders of the Collector....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(45)ELT579TriDel
1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal, relates to the value of the goods obtained by the appellants under Rule 196A and later disposed of by them. In March, 1977 the appellants disposed of some Motor Vehicle Parts (earlier received by them under Rule 192) from their premises after paying duty on the basis of the value declared AR 3A forms. The Department initiated proceedings taking the view that it was on the higher value at which the appellants sold the goods that they had to pay Central Excise duty and not the value mentioned in the AR 3A forms. The appellants resisted the demand and the show cause notice and submitted that value of goods is determined by the time and place of removal from the place of manufacture and not by the time and place of a subsequent sale. The Department rejected this plea and compounded the duty. The appellants lost in appeal also. Hence this appeal.2. We heard Shri Bedi and Smt. Wadhwa, Advocates and Shri Arora, the Ld. JDR for the Depa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(24)ECC69
1. M/s. Swastik Paper Industries, Bombay, have filed the present applications for rectification of mistake under Section 35-C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The said applications were received in the Registry on 22nd November, 1983 and the same emerge from the Tribunal's order No. 276/1983-C dated the 24th day of September, 1983.2. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, the learned Junior Departmental Representative raised a preliminary objection that though the miscellaneous applications were filed before the expiry of limitation in terms of provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but the same are haired by time as the impugned order is dated 24th September, 1983 and four years have passed, and pleaded that the ROM should be dismissed on the preliminary point.3. Shri R.K. Jain the learned consultant who has appeared on behalf of the applicant, has stated that the present application is under Sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Centra...
Tag this Judgment!