Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. All these Revenue appeals arise from a common order and hence they are taken up together as per law for disposal. The issue is as to whether the redemption fine imposed by them is justified or not. By a common order No. 75 to 90/97(T)(D) Cus dated 27.5.95, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that redemption fine is to be fixed at 100% CIF in all the cases.2. Revenue contends that the CIF has to be still increased on the basis of margin of profit and matter has to be re-determined.4. We have carefully considered the Revenue's plea. We notice that the matter was referred to a Larger bench in the case of HARPREET INTERNATIONAL on the same issue by this Bench and the larger bench presided by the Hon'ble President Shri K. Sreedharan as reported in 2000 (12) ELT 529 has held that redemption fine on coppy seeds for the relevant period is required to be determined at 85% of the CIF value in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, in the present case, the Commissioner has imposed 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(140)ELT259Tri(Chennai)
1. The assessee and revenue both have filed appeal and stay application against Order in Appeal No. 5/2000(H-I) (D) CD dt. 7.11.2000.2. In this order, the Commissioner has rejected the claim of Modvat credit with regard to the item compressors and its accessories like stop valves and drive set installed in the factory for producing chilled water at 5 to 10 deg. c and chilled brine at -20 deg. To -30 deg. C and the same being used to cool the reactants.3. Learned Consultant Shri G. Ramarao submits that the issue pertaining to grant of Modvat Credit on these item of capital goods has been decided in the larger bench case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs.Commissioner-199 (108) E.L.T.47 (Tribunal). West Region Bench also decided that the items in question are capital goods as in the case of Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Vs. Comm. of C.Ex., Mumbai-I, 2000(122) E.L.T.90(Tribunal) and in the case of Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Comm. of C.Ex, Goa 2000(120)E.L.T. 716 (Tribunal). Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(79)ECC123
1. This is Revenue appeal against the order in appeal No. 269/97 (CBE) dated 14.7.97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order in original granting Modvat Credit on certain items treating them as Integral part of the capital goods machinery and not pollution control machinery. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the Assistant Commissioner has granted the benefit of Modvat Credit in respect of the following three items: (i) 3 Nos of Purafil deep red scrubber, re-circulating units CA 1000-V and CA 2000 V filter media; 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of IFFCO reported in 1996 (86) ELT 177 SC and also gave a detailed finding and noted further the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Modi Xerox Ltd reported in 1996 (86) ELT 530 (T) and also the Tribunal refusing to refer the matter to the High Court and the case law reported in 1997 (18) RLT 368. He has also noted the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(79)ECC127
1. These are two appeals filed by Revenue against a common Order-in-Appeal No. 161 to 171/97 (CBE) (D) dated 13.5.97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy. The Commissioner has followed his earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 472 to 485/98 (CBE) (D) dated 25/6/96 by which the concession of the exemption of duty free clearances of value not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs has been granted. He has noted that he is bound by the ratio of his earlier order. The findings recorded by the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) in paras 6 to 9 of his order is reproduced herein below:- 6. I find that the same issue was considered earlier by my predecessor vide order-in-appeal No. 472 to 485/96 (CBE)(D) dated 25-6-96 relied on by the respondents. The extracts from the relevant para of the above order-in-appeal are reproduced below:- ".....The notification exempts specified goods cleared for home consumption on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year, in the case of first clearances of specified goods upto ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in OIO No. 145/96 dated 9.9.96. While confirming the demand of duty and imposition of penalty, the Commissioner has accepted the assessee's plea that they are required to be granted the benefit of exemption on the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product in terms of several judgments of the Tribunal cited by him. In particular, he has noted a direct judgment on this issue rendered in CHAMUNDI STEEL ROLLING MILLS (1994 (3) ELT 855).2. Revenue has taken a short plea in this case that appellants had not taken out the licence and had not filed declarations and maintained other forms and hence benefit of modvat credit was rejected.5. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the issue is no longer res integra and the Tribunal has been holding that modvat credit is required to be extended even in cases where the assessee has not filed declaration as held in CHAMUNDI STEEL ROLLIN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras by their Order dated 21st March 2000 in R.C.P. Nos. 1 & 5 of 97 have directed the Tribunal to draw a statement of case in terms of Section 35G and refer the following question of law for consideration by the Hon'ble High Court:- "Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the provisions of Rule 57F (2) have to be resorted to, for demand of duty on the goods, used as inputs, in the situation where Modvat facility has been withdrawn in respect of certain final products for which products the corresponding inputs are lying in stock on the date of the withdrawl of Modvat facility?" 2. The appellants Revenue had filed the appeals in E/29/91 and E/96/91-MAS being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal No. 288/90(M) dated 31.8.90 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai by which he has allowed Modvat credit of Rs. 2,77,053.50 under Rule 57(I) read with provision to Rule 57A and Rule 57F(1)(i) of CE Rules 1944 by setting aside the Order-i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. These Revenue appals are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore on the ground that the assessee have collected interest free advances from their customers at the time of placement of order and this was adjusted at the time of payment for the machinery supplied. Since, it appeared that the interest on the advance deposits collected from the customers constituted an additional consideration and since the value mentioned in the gate passes did not represent the value as determined under Section 4 of C.E. Act, 1944, the proceedings were initiated by the department. They have stated that though the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirmed Rs.16,523.00 being the duty involved on the interest accrued on the advances received by the respondent under proviso to Section 11a(1) of C.E. Act, 1944, by invoking the extended period. He has not imposed the penalty under Rule 173Q of C.E. Rules.2. Ld. DR Shri S.Soundararajan reiterated the submissions made by the Commissioner in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2000)LC424Tri(Chennai)
1. The appeal of the assessee and the Revenue arise from a common Order-in-Original No. 64/94, dated 26-12-94. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 68,35,193/- under Section 11A read with Rule 9(2) of C.E. Rules, 1944 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of C.E. Rules. The findings recorded insofar as these demands are concerned are reproduced herein below :- I have carefully gone through the case proceedings. I find that the show cause notice proposes to demand duty from M/s. T.G.L. Poshak Corporation as detailed below. (i) An amount of Rs. 3,08,284/- being the duty alleged to have been not paid on 162.255 MT of vanaspathi cleared from the factory without payment of Central Excise duty. This amount is arrived at based on certain details contained in the exercise note recovered from the factory at the time of search. (ii) An amount of Rs. 68,35,193/- being the duty alleged to have been not paid on 3597.470 MTs cleared from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The stay application and appeal lies in a short compass and hence both are taken up together for disposal as per law. The Revenue is aggrieved with OIA No.219/2000(H-I) CE dated 22.11.2000 with regard to findings recorded in paras 8&9 which are noted herein below:- 1. I find that the appellants have taken modvat credit of Rs.1,78,667.06 on 27.74.94 on the strength of Certificate dated 26.4.94 issued by M/s BPCL M/s. have certified that quantity of 68,480 MT steel supplied by them to the appellants vide their authority letter NO.048 to 055 dated 23.4.94 is a part of 1459.480 MT of steel consignment imported by them from W. Germany and on which duty of Rs. 38,07,851.25 was paid under Bill of Entry 1072 dated 6.4.93 of Bombay Custom House. The proportionate countervailing duty paid by M/s BPCL on the quantity supplied to the above party was Rs. 178,667.06. M/s BPCL declared that they have not clamed any refund of countervailing duty from the Customs authority on the aforesaid quan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This appeal has been filed by Shri R.U. Nathan on the ground that the Ld. Commissioner of Customs has passed the impugned order mechanically without applying his mind to the latest liberalised policy of the Govt. in respect of gold. He has also submitted that the import of gold is not illegal and the gold and bullion have been deleted from Section 12(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and thus there is no prohibition for the import of gold. He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in a case reported in 1997 (91) ELT 277-AP has held that gold is not a prohibited item and it shall be released under Section 125 of the Customs Act 1962 and no discretion has been given to the adjudicating authority to confiscate it absolutely. He has also submitted that the three gold chain were worn personally by him as his personal jewellery and therefore the order of absolute confiscation cannot be passed against such personal jewellery. He has als...
Tag this Judgment!