Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(134)ELT515Tri(Chennai)
1. Both these appeals arise from same Order-in-Original No. 16/97, dated 14-3-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai on the ground that the order of Commissioner is erroneous and unsustainable in law inasmuch as he has failed to consider various submissions, grounds and evidence before adjudicating the matter and the order is therefore vitiated. Appellants have been issued a fresh certificate with a fresh number for the factory located at No. 1-B, Avaniapuram Road, Thirupparankundram, under the Factories Act, 1948.They have also submitted that they are a small scale unit and they have given the full ground plan and they have given the information in the prescribed format. It is submitted by the appellants that the Superintendent of the range should have known the details of the earlier manufacturer, if any, which they are not supposed to disclose to the Department suo moto until they were asked. The Department had neither asked nor they were forced to intimate abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This appeal is filed by M/s. Bhooratnam & Co. against the order in Appeal No. 3/97(H) CE Dt. 31.1.97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).The Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 2,09,903/- on Delivery challans issued By M/s. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and the Modvat credit disallowed on the ground that TWAD Board are neither manufacturer nor a dealer of manufacturer and hence the Delivery Challans are not authenticated documents in terms of the Notification No. 15/94 CE (NT) DT. 30.3.94. The assessee had contended before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, that the TWAD Board gave contract for supply of PSC Pipes to M/s. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate. As the Contractor could not satisfactorily complete the supplies and became defaulter, the TWAD Board took over the factory premises and the entire stock of pipes, cement and steel and paid the necessary duty vide TR 6 challans with the permissions of the jurisdictional Assistant Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2000)LC129Tri(Chennai)
1. The matter has been listed for passing final order in terms of Section 35K read with 35C of the Central Excise Act.2. The Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore was aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 249/87 (CBE) dated 26.10.87 against the respondent PSU unit namely M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) and had filed an appeal E/42/88 (MAS) challenging the grant of Modvat in respect of Inter Leaving Kraft paper used in the manufacture of stainless steel sheets under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal after due consideration of the submissions made by both the sides allowed the appeal of the Revenue by holding in para 4 of the Final Order No.153/89 dated 30.3.89 as follows: We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned SDR and the papers filed by the respondents. The question is whether the inter leaving kraft paper can be considered as an input for purpose of MODVAT credit in terms of Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. It is stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The above matter has been listed for final order in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by their order dated 24.8.2001 in reference case No. 5/97. The matter had been referred to the Hon'ble High Court for answering the following question under Section of the CE Act, 1944: "When Modvat credit is allowed under the provisions of rule 57H in respect of goods received from small manufacturers, whether the benefit of higher Modvat Credit can be allowed or not at the same time under the provisions of Rule 57B" and the High Court after due consideration of the matter has passed the following order : The question referred is as to whether Rule. 57-B of the Central Excise Rules as it existed in the year 1991 is applicable in respect of the inputs lying in stock at the time the manufacturer obtained acknowledgment of declaration made under Rule 57-B. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of paints and warnishes which fall under chapter XXXII of the Central Excise Tariff, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(77)ECC531
1. This is a revenue appeal against order in appeal No. 1/95 (M) (D) dated 12.1.1995 granting relief to the appellant on the removal of waste, parings, scrap of plastics following under chapter 39 of the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 granting benefit of Sl. No.19 of the table to notification No. 14/92 CE dated 1.3.92, after following the ratio of the Tribunal judgement rendered in the case of Ajit Metal Industries Vs. CCE reported in 1993 (66) ELT 81 (T) wherein it has been held that the word "leviable" would mean the duty prescribed under the act read with any exemption notification in force and that the word 'already paid' could mean directed to be paid or ought to have been paid. Therefore, in the present case no additional duty of customs is leviable on polyethylene granules and as such the conditions stipulated under the notification No. 14/92 dated 1.3.92 that such specified goods should arise from duty paid goods to qualify for exemption is deemed to have been paid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(77)ECC724
1. This is a revenue appeal arising from order-in-appeal No. 642/96 dated 1.10.1996 by which he has held that the assessee is entitled to Modvat credit in respect of capital goods used in the manufacture of cotton combed/carded. However, there is an intermediary product which is arising while manufacturing the final product. In view of this, the order in original had rejected the modvat credit on the ground that the said intermediary product is not a specified product. The assessee has pleaded that it is not a marketable product and it cannot be considered as goods. The Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the appellant's contention. He took into consideration his earlier orders also.2. The Ld. SDR submits that in the assesse's own case, the Tribunal in final order 91/99 dated 12.1.1999 has remanded the case denovo consideration to reconsider the pleas raised by the revenue.3. The Ld. Consultant submits that the manufacturer in the process of manufacturing cotton carded/combed an intermedia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(78)ECC409
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original No. 80/96(M) dated 16.5.96 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore. The short facts required for determination is as to whether the appellants received goods for the purpose of repair only and such duty paid items which had been cleared and came back for repair was returned after repair without payment of duty or whether they brought into existence new goods for the purpose of levy of duty? The department had taken a plea that appellants had not made entries in the necessary registers to show the receipt of defective goods or for replacement and on the basis of various statements recorded, they charged the appellants for levy of duty of Rs. 21,72,064 with regard to the goods cleared by them without payment of duty. This was seriously contested and enormous evidence was produced by the appellants to show that they had indeed received already duty paid goods for the purpose of rectification or replacement of certain parts. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(77)ECC529
1. This is a Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 69/97 (H) CE dated 12.3.97 holding that the copper clad laminates is classifiable under sub-heading 7410.21 and the Revenue's claim for reclassification under SH 8546.00 has been held to be not proper and correct. He has noted that he is giving the decision in terms of judicial discipline by following the CEGAT's judgement on this very issue rendered in the case of PRATAP RAJASTAN COPPER FOILS & LAMINATES LTD VS CCE - 1989 (44) ELT 775 and CCE Vs METRO WOOD WORKS & OTHERS and BAKELITE HYLAM - 1989 (43) ELT 660 which have confirmed the classification of copper clad laminates under heading 74.06 of CETA'85 as copper foils.2. Revenue in this appeal has taken a short plea that the matter is agitated before the Supreme Court and as appeal is pending against CEGAT judgement rendered in PRATAP RAJASTAN COPPER FOILS (supra), therefore appeal be allowed or kept pending till the Apex Court decides the matter.3. We have heard Ld.DR ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(77)ECC527
1. These are two Revenue appeals against Order-in-Original No. 22/96 dated 29.3.96 by which he was upheld the allegation brought in the show cause notice that the first respondent had manufactured and cleared genset which was excisable and dutiable. Therefore, they are required to pay duty of Rs. 83,712/- in terms of proviso to Section 11A(1). He has also confiscated 200 KVA genset manufactured and installed and used by M/s. T.A. Abdul Wahid & Co. under Rule 173Q, however, granting redemption on payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. There is a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on M/s. Southern Power Systems under Rule 173Q and Rs.5,000/- on M/s. T. Abdul Wahid & Co., under Rule 209A.2. Revenue is aggrieved only with the finding of the Commissioner that duty has to be considered as cum duty and modvat credit is required to be extended to them. To that extent alone, Revenue is aggrieved and there is no grievance against the second party namely Abdul Wahid & Co.3. Shri A. Jayachandran, Ld. DR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(140)ELT113Tri(Chennai)
1. The appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that duty has been demanded on raw material found short to the tune of 3Rs. 28,215/-.The appellants have also stated that they have not taken Modvat credit on this raw material and that was also not the allegation in the show cause notice. The brief facts of the case are that during the visit of the appellants' factory on 14-9-94, 6270 kgs. of raw material viz. C.R.Steel strips were found short with reference to the relevant registers in respect of size No. 3418 for the finished C.R. steel strapping of 51.70 kgs. were found short while excess quantity of various sizes to the tune of 3652.1 kgs. were found. The excess quantity was seized by the officers and the appellants were asked to pay the duty on the charges amounting to Rs. 28,215/- on 14-9-94 and this duty was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the charges and confiscated the excess quantity under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, given an option...
Tag this Judgment!