Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1995)(75)ELT912Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though this day, only stay applications were listed for hearing, after hearing both the sides and with their consent, we have decided to dispose of the appeals themselves, since the impugned orders have not considered the issue on merits, but the demands have been confirmed and appeals have been disposed of on a short ground.2. All these appeals are against the common Order-in-Appeal No. PCJ-107 to 110/SRT/94 (F. No. V-2(29)287-290/SRT/91), dated 8-9-1993 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.3. Facts of the case are that the appellants have filed declaration for availment of MODVAT credit in respect of certain inputs used in the manufacture of final products namely Meno Ethylene Glycol (MEG) Di Ethylene Glycol (DEG), Tri Ethylene Glycol (TEG). However, the Assistant Collector, vide a communication bearing No. V(29) 30-1-91/MP, dated 23-9-1991 communicated to them that inputs covered by declaration were not eligible for MODVAT Credit and they were directed to reverse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1995)LC613Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicant's appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,34,925 towards duty vide order in appeal No.NK(73) Goa-16/642/94 dated 23-8-1994.2. Shri Maingi, the ld. advocate, appearing for the applicants, pleaded that they were availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 207/88-C.E. in accordance with the approved classification list.However, the Department held that the exemption is available only to the complete items and not to the parts, because parts are not specifically mentioned in the notification. Subsequently, the Government have rectified the defect by issuing amendment to the Notification covering the entire item. Though the demands are within time limit, there is a likelihood of Section 11C Notification being issued. He also pleaded that the amount of duty has not been recovered from the customers and when there is an established practice, even the demand for six months cannot be sustained as per the decision of the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)(55)LC492Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 21.5.1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The background facts of the appeal are that the Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Valuation Branch, New Custom House, Bombay passed an order dated 22.11.1991 after investigation into the declared value of some of the consignments imported by the appellants herein from their Japanese Collaboration, Asahi Glass Company and ordered that invoice value may be accepted and that pending cases of provisionally assessment may be completed under Section 14(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. The appellants herein had entered into two agreements with the overseas principles. One agreement is a technical collaboration agreement and the other is the equipment supply agreement. The Assistant Collector on examining these agreements bases this order for assessment under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act and Valuation Rules 8 of their import...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1995)(75)ELT617Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. GSM-72/90 (V-2(14D)3088/88), dated 9-1-1990 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, dismissing the appeal of the appellants.2. The appellants were availing benefit of exemption under Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979 in respect of Cuprous Chloride as an input used in the manufacture of the final product S.O. Dyes. Cuprous Chloride is classified under T.I. 68 and when it is used in the manufacture of final product set-off is available in respect of duty paid thereof. However, the department objected to their eligibility for set-off on the ground that it is neither a raw material or a component.It is only catalyst. Though on merits, the issue may fall within the purview of Special Bench, Shri Prakash Shah, the Ld. Advocate pleads that he is not contesting the appeal on merits. They are not contesting the appeal on merits mainly considering the amount involved. However, they are contesting the appeal only on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)(55)LC37Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Short question involved in the present appeal is as to whether "the preparations based on the Ultra Marine Blue in the instant case amounts to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944? If so, whether the appellants were entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 114/73-CE dated 13.4.1973 as amended ?" 2. The facts giving rise to the above controversy in brief are that the appellants after obtaining the L-4 licence as directed by the Range Superintendent filed their Classification List No. 224/87 classifying their product "preparations based on Ultra Marine Blue" under sub-heading No. 3206.90 and claiming exemption under Notification No.175/86-CE and further showing in para III of the classification list liquid blue as not excisable. Subsequently they also claimed the benefit under exemption Notification No. 114/73 as amended. However, on scrutiny of the classification list the Department was of the opinion that the appel...
Tag this Judgment!