Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(149)ELT94Tri(Chennai)
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-original No. 51/96 dated 11.7.96 by which the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai by his order dated 11.7.96 has held that in the operative portion as follows: i) The benefit of Advance Licence/DEEC Scheme available only for 4% of FOB value of the export product and the remaining goods be assessed at the appropriate rate of duty. ii) I order the confiscation goods valued Rs. 8,58,782/- covered under the Bill of Entry No. 9212/22.02.96 under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Custom Act, 1962 readwith Section 33 of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992. However, I give an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 85,000/- (Eighty Five Thousand only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousands only) of M/s. PCK Buderus (India) Tool Steel Company, Madras-17 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The allegation against the appellant is brought out in paras-1 to 10 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The stay and appeal are taken up together as the issue lies in a short compass and having been decided by the Tribunal by earlier order rendered in RANALAKSHMI TEXTILE PROCESSORS LTD., vide final order No.1413/2001 dated 17.8.2001.2. The appellants are absent and they have requested the case to be decided on the basis of this judgements and written submissions filed by them.3.This appeal is arising form OIO No.2/01-Com. Dated 16.3.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore holding that the gallery portion of the Hot Air Stenter is includible in the chamber for the purpose of fixation of annual capacity of production under sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998.4. Appellants vide their letter dated 15.9.01 have submitted that the final order No.1413/01 arising out of OIO No.IV/16/437/98CX.POL dated 11/4/2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex., Coimbatore and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(150)ELT717Tri(Chennai)
1. These are Revenue appeals against order in Appeal No. 376 & 377/96 (CBE) dated 30.06.96.2. The learned DR has filed a letter of the Additional Commissioner addressed to the SDR dated 6.9.2001 stating that they are restricting their appeal to only one appeal as the Commissioner has accepted the order in Appeal No. 376/96(CBE) and the issue which is required to be determined in the present appeal is with regard to eligibility to Modvat Credit on the item Spares for Pumps/motors. The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted the benefit of capital goods under Rule 57S by applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works reported in 1991 (55) ELT 444. The Revenue is aggrieved with this order and contends that the Supreme Court judgment is distinguishable as it was not in the context of eligibility to Modvat Credit in respect of spares for motor and therefore, the benefit cannot be extended to the item as it has no relevance to the explanat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(79)ECC656
1. This revenue appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. 209/97 (CBE) dated 28.5.97 on the ground that respondents had not included the notional interest accrued on the advances received from their customers from whom they have obtained the deposits and therefore differential duty on this count on the notional interest was not paid. The Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded his findings in para-3 to 5 of the impugned order as follows:- 3. From the records I find that I have decided similar matters earlier -vide combined Order-in-Appeal No. 555 to 559/96 (CBE) dated 18.7.96, based on the Madras High Court judgements as also on the Board's latest instructions dated 27th May 1996. Therefore I am deciding these appeals also on the same lines. The relevant paras 6, 7 and 8 of the Order-in-Appeal dated 18.7.96 above are extracted below for the sake of easy reference:- "6. I find force in the above submissions made by the appellants. The issue here was examined in detail by the Honourable High...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. Three appeals filed by the importer were disposed of by Final Order No. 269 to 271/2001 dated 9.2.2001. In the cause title the authority's name has been shown as Commissioner of Customs, Madras while the impugned order had been passed by the Collector of Central Excise and (Customs), Madras issued from the Office of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras-34. The Commissioner has filed this ROM application stating that in the cause title the mention of Commissioner of Central Excise should have been, instead of Commissioner of Customs, Madras.3. We notice from the impugned order that the name of the Commissioner has been given and mentioned as Collector of Central Excise (Customs) Madras. Therefore, the stenographer has taken the order to have been passed by the Commissioner of Customs. However, as the same has been issued from the Office of the Collector of Central Excise Madras, the prayer made by the Commissioner for change of cause title in terms of Order-in-Original is accepte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. 1. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order in appeal No. 305/97 (CBE) dated 11.9.97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has held that the items wires and cables fall within the definition capital goods under Rule 57Q of the CE Rules, 1944 read with Rule 57S of the said Rules. While holding so, he has followed the Tribunal judgments rendered and quoted by him in his order, and one such judgment quoted is in the case of Novo Udyog Limited reported in 1996 (88) ELT ELT 532 (T).2. We have heard both sides in this case. It was brought to our notice that the issue stands settled in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissing the Revenue appeals in Civil Appeal Nos.619-626/2000 in the case of Jawahar Mills and others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the Larger bench judgment rendered in the case of Jawahar Mills reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 wherein the larger bench has held that items wires and cables are eligible for the benefit of Modvat Credit as ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This is a revenue appeal against order-in-appeal No. 327/96 CBE dated 22.5.96 by which the Commissioner has allowed the assessee's claim of the benefit of the notification No. 1/93 CE dated 28.2.93 vide amending the notification No. 90/94-CE dated 25.4.94. He has followed the earlier decision rendered by him in order-in-appeal NO. 253/95-CBE dated 1.12.95 and also taken into consideration of the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case HATTES Electronics v. CCE as report ed in 1994 (70) ELT 127(T) which laid down the proposition that exemption can be availed either from the beginning of the financial year or during the middle of the financial year and the benefit of the notification has to be given to the full extend of value of clearances stipulated in the notification.2. Revenue is aggrieved with the order and contend that the benefit of the notification will not be available prior to the availment of notification. They seek for setting aside the order as regards non-inclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(79)ECC301
1. All these three stay applications and appeals arise from Order-in-Original No.6/2001 dated 16.4.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai confirming the duty demand of Rs. 7,07,26,843/- in respect of clearances of cement effected form their factory during the period form June'94 to April'99 under Rule 9 (2) of Central Excise Rules, read with proviso to section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act. There is a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under various provisions of Central Excise Rules has been imposed besides penalty of Rs. 3,26,43,956/- under Section 11AC of C.E. Act. There is an order of confiscation of land, building etc. However, the same was ordered to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 25 lakhs. On two individuals namely Shri P. Venkateswarulu, Managing Director, Shri J.S.R. Prasad, Executive Director penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each has been imposed.2. Appellants are manufacturers of cement and had obtained exemption in terms of notification No. 5/94 dated 1.3.94 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. For hearing the stay application, appellant is required to pre-deposit a sum of RS. 2 lakhs towards penalty which was imposed on Shri Sheriff Zainulabudeen under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Appellant, through his Counsel Shri Abdul Nazeer, has submitted that as he was under COFEPOSA, he could nt attend the personal hearing and since the Advocate could not represent the case, he wanted the case to be adjourned to some other date. According to the Ld. Counsel confusion arose because of two letters one is regarding the intimation of personal hearing issued on 13.2.2001 asking the appellant to appear before the Commissioner of Customs on 28.2.01 and second one issued on 20.2.2001 asking him to appear before the Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Air Cargo Complex on 20.2.2001. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that this was the only personal hearing which was given on 1/3/01 and the Ld. Commissioner was required to adjourn the mater and provide the appellant one more opp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(150)ELT690Tri(Chennai)
1. This is an appeal against order-in-original No. 93/2000 (Cust - Airport) dated 16.11.2000. O.S. No. 559/DEEC/MISC/690/95/56 (CA) App.75/95 (CAU). This appeal has been filed on the ground that they had initially availed the modvat credit on indigenous inputs which they had reversed. Ld. Advocate Shri B.V. Kumar has invited out attention to letter dated 6.9.96 of the Assistant Commissioner in which it was stated that they will be requesting the Chief Commissioner through Commissioner to nominate a Cost Accountant to verify the assessee reversing the credit on actual basis before the issue of the formula and the certificate will be issued as soon as he verifies the record of the assessee. This letter was addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Hyderabad I Division, to Commissioner, Customs, Chennai, a copy of which was endorsed to Shri B.V. Kumar. Ld. Counsel has stated that without waiting for the report from the Cost Accountant so appointed by Chief Commissioner, th...
Tag this Judgment!