Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. In both these appeals the issue is common and hence is taken up for disposal as per law. By order-in-original No. 33/92 dated 11.11.1992 the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai has confirmed the duty of Rs. 22,77,871/- under Rule 9(2) of CE Rules read with Section 11A(2) of CE Act, in respect of clearance of structurals of 1396.584 MTs, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has also been imposed on M/s. The Coromandal Engineering Company under Rule 173 (Q) of CE Rules besides a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. India Cements Ltd under Rule 209(A) of CE Rules. The appellants have taken up a stand that the items cleared by them that is structures like columns, trusses, bracings, purlins and stair cases, etc., appeared to have been fabricated in the factory of M/s. India Cements Ltd are not goods and such an activity is not an activity of manufacture. They are not to be treated as marketable goods and are not known in the market as goods for the purpose of classification under chapter s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The stay application and appeal arises form the order-in-appeal No.266/2000(H-I) dated 14.12.2000 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that oxygen gas utilised for the purpose of cutting blooms and billets into smaller lengths do not come within the category of "raw materials/semi finished goods and hence are not entitled benefit of modvat credit in terms of Rule 57 (4). He has confirmed duty of modvat credit of Rs. 16,472/- however, he has stayed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.3. Ld. Counsel submits that oxygen gas is a necessary ingredient and input for the purpose of cutting blooms and billets into smaller lengths. Without the aid of oxygen gas, the manufacture cannot be done.Therefore, he relies on the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE as reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47 which confirms modvat credit. He also relies on Larger Bench judgment rendered in the case of Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. CCE, Chennai as reported in 1996 (82) ELT 575 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This appeal arises from order in Original No. 64/97 CAU dated 30.6.97 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai holding that the imported item is not heavy melting scrap as disclosed in the two Bills of Entry (BE) NO. 55041 dated 9.11.95, and 51371 dated 17.10.95 and it does not fit into the description of advance licence issued under DEEC scheme which are valid for duty free import of non alloy melting scrap.He has held the item to be not classifiable as declared under Chapter heading 7204 carrying duty of 40% plus 15%. He has held the item to be classified under sub heading 8455.30 of the Customs Tariff as rolls for re-rolling mills and not as heavy melting scrap and charged duty @ 25% plus 15. He has imposed a redemption fine of Rs 3,00,000/- and penalty of Rs 1,00,000/- besides duty of Rs 14.23.600/- Out of this duty demand, Rs 4,57,892/- voluntarily paid by the appellants was adjusted.2. At the outset Shri AS Sunderarajan, learned Counsel, accompanied by Miss Sakthi, Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. By this stay application, appellant is seeking waiver of pre deposit of duty amount of Rs. 32,41,654/- on the alleged removal of M.S. scrap, C.I. scrap, S.S. scrap, aluminium scrap and copper scrap without payment of duty in terms of Section 11A of Central Excise Act. The Commissioner has also imposed equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs in terms of Rule 173Q (1) of CE Rules.The show cause notice was issued on 17.4.2000 for the period 1995-96 to 1999-2000. The assessee in their reply to the show cause notice stated as follows: (a) accuracy of duty quantified could not be commented up on as the concerned bills are in the possession of CE authorities. (b) they made correspondence with the Assistant Commissioner and Range Officer regarding disposal of condemned cables, wires, waste oils, scrap etc. and payment of amount thereon under rule 57S (2). Hence there was no suppression. (c) Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 deals with base meta...
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. 257/2000 (H-I) CE dated 12.12.2000 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee has rightly taken the credit within 6 months in terms of Rule 57G(2) and hence there is no violation and on that ground set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved with this order, the Revenue has come up in appeal alongwith stay application seeking stay of operation of the impugned order. The findings recorded by the Commissioner in para 5 & 6 is reproduced herein below:- As regards invoice No. 13324 dated 9.2.96, the modvat credit of Rs. 43,284/- has been disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the same was taken by the appellants on 15.9.96 i.e., after a period of more than six months and hence, as per proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the appellants are not eligible to take credit after six months from the date of issue of the invoice. The appellants contended that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This is a departmental appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Trichy, against M/s Tamilnadu Asbestos (Pipes) the respondents herein on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy has allowed the appeal of the respondents holding that the endless felts are used in the manufacture of asbestos. The inputs declared are endless felts used in pipe making machine and it picks up asbestos cement slurry and helps information of asbestos pipes and are not forming part of the final product or not consumed in the manufacturing process. The Revenue further contends that endless felts is a machinery item and is excluded from Rule 57A of CE Rules, 1944.They further contended that if any credit is to be allowed it can only be allowed under Rule 57Q and not under Rule 57A. They have therefore prayed for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the order of the original authority by rejecting the declaration filed by the assessee.2. Heard Shri ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the order in appeal NO. 64 & 65/97 (CBE) DATED 21.2.97 holding that the declaration filed for taking credit on capital goods was filed within three months from the date of registration of the factory under the CE Act, 1944, in September 1995 (21.9.95). Therefore, he has held that in term of Rule 57T(1), the Assistant Commissioner has got powers to condone the delay and hence the assessee was eligible to take Modvat Credit on capital goods. The findings recorded in para 4 to 6 of this order are reproduced below: 4. The appellants main plea before me is that even though the capital goods were procured by them between May and August 1995, they did not filed the declaration as they were under the bona fide belief that the declaration, if any, needs be filed only after obtaining to registration certificate from the Capital Excise department, i.e. after 21-9-95. Their plea is that the date of Central...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original No. 18/97 dated 27.6.97 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai holding (a) that appellants had manufactured only parts of crane and their contention that they had manufactured only complete crane is not acceptable (b) that they had not given all the details pertaining to manufacture of parts and details which they had been furnished was only with regard to complete crane and therefore the a larger period is applicable and hence duty for larger period is confirmable in terms of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of C.E. Act since there was mensrea involved with an intention to evade duty, therefore penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 173Q of C.E.Rules, 1944 has been imposed.2. Ld.Chartered Accountant Shri P.C. Anand very forcibly and vehemently pleaded that the Commissioner has recorded their submissions in 34 paragraphs in 18 pages, however his finding portion of the order is v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT290Tri(Chennai)
1. All these appeals are filed by revenue on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the credit since the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deals with stock transfer of goods whereas in the present case the inputs are supplied free of cost to the job worker. They have also submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. 1998 (18) ECR 541 is not relevant to the present case as it deal with book adjustment of case by way of stock transfer. They have also submitted that the correct procedure as laid down in the rules has not been followed and the job workers is not entitled to avail credit. The procedure followed by the assessee is in contravention of provisions of notification No. 32/94-CE (NT) as amended by notification No.14/95-CE(NT) dated 20.4.95 and hence they are not eligible for the credit. It has also been stated by them in the grounds of appeal that as per notification No. 14/95-CE (NT) dated 20....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2000)LC268Tri(Chennai)
1. The Miscellaneous application has been filed for seeking early hearing of the appeal on the ground that the appellants have imported feature films and the question of ineludibility of royalty charges and their prayer for excluding the portion of the amount which is referred to as distribution charges thereof is required to be allowed.2. Heard both the sides in the matter. As the issue lies in a short compass, the miscellaneous application is allowed and the appeal is taken for disposal with the consent of both the parties.3. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported feature films titled "Web of Silence - AIDS" in 35 mm print of 2569 Mtrs along with one trailer in 35 mm of 35 Mtr length and declared the value for the purpose of assessment as US $ 1000 and $ 20 respectively totalling US $ 1020. It was noticed that the appellants paid US $ 12,500 towards Royalty including one brand new print and one Trailer (Rights of re-production and distribution for public performance ...
Tag this Judgment!