Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC198
1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) in Order No. 2001/86-BCH, dated 24-11-1986, wherein the extension of the Project Import Registration was denied to the appellants.2. The appellants are stated to be carrying on the industrial activity of heat treatment work, of castings, machine tools and fabricated vessels in their factory. They are registered as a small scale industrial unit with the Directorate of Industries.3. They were granted an import licence for the import of one complete unit of Mobile Heat Treatment machine. They applied for registration of the contract under the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 to avail the benefit of the assessment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. The Assistant Collector rejected their application, on the ground that they are dealing with only job work and their activities amount to a specialised support service and not manufacturing activities and hence does not fall within the scope of Indu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(26)ECC62
1. In all these appeals, common issue is involved, the issue being, what will be the correct classification of paper-based decorative laminated sheets for the purpose of Central Excise, which is the product of all the manufacturers concerned in this group of appeals.So, we heard all these appeals together and dispose them of by this common order.In Appeal No. E/2962/88-C - Meghdoot Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Meghdoot"), the product was, earlier, classified under T.I. 68. When Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 came into force w.e.f.28-2-1986, the appellant applied for classification under sub-heading 3920.31 of Chapter 39 which was approved on 18-8-1986. Subsequently, by filing another classification list, the appellant sought revision of the classification w.e.f. 1-3-1986 under another heading 48.18 sub-heading 4818.90 of Chapter 48. The appellant also filed a refund claim on 16-9-1986 for the excess amount of duty paid on clearances effective from 1-3-1986 onwards....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC172Tri(Delhi)
1. H.E.C. has filed the above captioned 28 appeals being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Calcutta. Since common issue is involved in the above 28 appeals, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The appellants have also filed an application under Rule 23 of the C.E.G.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1982 requesting for the grant of permission for the admission of the additional evidence at the appellate stage. Particulars of additional evidence filed by the appellants are reproduced below :- 3. Shri N.C. Sogani, the learned consultant, who has appeared on behalf of the appellants has stated that the essentiality certificate was very much in existence at the time of the importation of the goods, but the same could not be filed due to some administrative difficulties and the appellants were under the honest belief that only consumption certificates were to be furnished for claiming the benefit of Notification No. 179/80-Cus., dated 4-9-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC490Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 129-A(1) of the Customs Act against the order-in-appeal No. 1985/85 dated 30-4-1985.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported Industrial Nylon yarn against proper Import licence issued by the Import Trade Control authorities. The consignments were detained by the customs authorities pending certain verification and the consignments were deposited in a warehouse at the time of import. The Customs authorities were requested by the appellants to release the consignments and proper ex-bond bills of entry were filed by them but those bills of entry were not finalised by the customs authorities from 4-7-1973 to 27-8-1975 as DRI as well as SUB were making enquiries during these periods. The Bills of entry were finalised by the customs authorities on 27-8-1975.During this period, the countervailing duty on the goods were enhanced from Rs. 11.50 P to Rs. 19.60 P per kg. The appellants requested for levy of countervailing duty at the rate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC351Tri(Delhi)
1. Revision filed by the appellants before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1877/80 dated 1-1-1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay has been statutorily transferred to this Tribunal as an appeal under Section 35P(2) of the Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants M/s. Weikfield Products Company (India) Private Limited are manufacturers of Prepared or Preserved Foods which fall under the Tariff Item 1(B) of the Central Excise Tariff. During the relevant period i.e. from 1-10-1974 to 30-8-1975 they had sold their goods through two broad channels viz.directly to the Canteen Stores Department (hereinafter called CSD) and to the Weikfield Central Marketing Organisation (hereinafter called the CMO), allowing 20% and 30% discount to CSD and CMO respectively.According to the appellants higher discount was allowed to CMO because they were sole selling agents for civil sales in India and they have to incur cost of freight for transport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC220
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31-5-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Mangalore by which he had ordered assessment of the second hand stone edge cutting machine imported by the appellants herein for purposes of assessment of Customs duty at enhanced value under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also further held that the import against the licence produced was unauthorised, ordering confiscation of the goods imported under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 levying a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.The facts in brief are that the appellants imported in September, 1987, one unit second hand stone edge cutting machine for which they declared CIF value of Rs. 35,000/- and also produced a Customs Clearance Permit over the same amount. They also made a further declaration that the machine had been supplied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC87Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, 'H' Group, Bombay rejecting the refund claim of the appellants herein and denying them the benefit of Notification 314/85-Cus., dated 11-10-1985 in respect of moulds for EVA and rubber. The Assistant Collector rejected their claim on the ground that the moulds in question were described in the invoice and Bill of Entry as "moulds for EVA and rubber" and because of this description, held that since the moulds are capable of use for rubber also, the appellants were not eligible for Notification 314/85-Cus., which exempts moulds falling within Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act when imported for the manufacture of artificial plastic articles from Customs duty. The goods were assessed to duty under Tariff Heading 84.06 about which, there is no dispute. On appeal, the Assistant Collector's order was upheld...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC97
1. The appellants in this appeal have sought for setting aside the order-in-appeal dated 30-8-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The facts of this case are that the appellants are small scale processors/dealers of/in glass/mirrors and regularly import them. The appellants had filed refund claim for reassessment of the imported goods under Heading No. 90.01 of the CTA 1975 and C.V.D. under Heading 68 of CET as against No. 70.01/16 of CTA 75 and 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff. They had stated before the Asstt. Collector of Customs (Refund) that the mirrors imported were 321 cms and were made of 6 mm thick float glass. That the glasses were optically clear and process converting it into mirrors will make it optically clear mirror. The manufacturer had certified as free from waves and distortions. They had further submitted that the goods are known in the commercial trade parlance as mirrors and not glass sheets. They had further submitted that they were arti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(25)ECC224
1. These are two appeals preferred against the order dated 28-11-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta by which he had ordered confiscation of the consignment of Mechanism for battery operated toys imported by appellants M/s. Kakar Toys Industries under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 levying a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. By the same order, the Additional Collector also ordered ab: solute confiscation of the plastic moulded components of toys imported by appellants M/s. Mahendra Mechanical Industries and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on them. The facts in brief are that the Custom House agents of appellant M/s. Kakar Toys Industries filed Bill of Entry on 11-5-1987 of a consignment containing parts of toys imported from M/s. Alltoys Co. Ltd., Hong Kong. Similarly lateron, on 24-8-1987, the same Custom House agents filed B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)LC276Tri(Delhi)
1. This miscellaneous application came up for hearing on 5-9-1989 and after hearing Shri A.K. Jain, L.A. for the appellant and Shri A.S, Sunder Rajan, Ld. J.D.R. for the respondent, we directed the applicant appellant to deposit further amount of Rs. 2.5 lakh within a period of 4 months from that date in addition to the amount which has already been deposited by them. We, hereunder, set out our reasons for the same : The appellant had filed an application for stay vide application No.E/Stay/1389/88-C and after hearing the parties by an order dated 21-10-1988, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 10 lakh in cash in four equal instalments of Rs. 2,50,000/-each starting from November,1988 and ending in February, 89. It may be noted that by the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), the appellant was called upon to pay Rs. 3180421.86 as duty and Rs. 30,00,000.00 as penalty. It has been noted in the order that undisputed duty amount is Rs. 8,95,584.99 and that the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!