Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(63)ECC198
1. The question referred to me for determination in this appeal filed by M/s. Makkar & Loomba, New Delhi is whether the item--adhesive coated fabric was classifiable under sub-heading No. 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff or it was classifiable under sub-heading No. 5906.90 of the said Tariff.2. I have heard Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant for the appellants and Shri A.M. Tilak. JDR for the respondents/Revenue.3. The Id. Consultant referred to the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under F.No. 59/3/90 CXI (Circular 24/90 CXI) dated 23.11.90 wherein it has been clarified that the adhesive coated fabrics was classifiable under sub-heading No. 5909.00.He also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise to plead that although the circular was issued subsequent to the impugned order, the Revenue could not plead against the said Circular.4. In reply Shri A.M. Tilak, JDR submitted that in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the allegations of the complainant, the opposite party (OP) M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. had floated a scheme known as 'Golden Heights Scheme' for the allotment of farm units in Village Sohna, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The complainant booked one unit in the said scheme and was allotted farm unit No. D-15. The complainant paid the entire consideration and thereafter the opposite party was to execute the necessary documents for transfers of the ownership of the said unit in the name of the complainant. Possession of the unit was also delivered to the complainant. A number of meetings took place between the parties for finalisation of the execution of the sale deed. Final draft was also approved but the opposite party failed to execute the documents. The grievance of the complainant that inspite of many requests and a written notice/ the other party failed to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT682TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,15,647/- on the appellants herein who are manufacturers of pharamaceutical machinery and spare parts thereof, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The demand has been confirmned for the reasons that the value of investment on plant and machinery by the appellants exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs and, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption in terms of Notification 77/83 (sic), that they had not included packing and forwarding charges in their assessable value although they had recovered the amount from their customers and that they cleared the goods without the cover of gate pass and without accountal in statutory records during the period 1984-85 to 1988-89.2. We have heard Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Counsel and Shri D.S. Negi, learned SDR. According to the Department, the value of plant and machinery as seen from the balance sheet for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(103)ELT419TriDel
1. By this Misc. application, the applicants have requested for compliance of the Stay Order by debiting the amount in R.G. 23A Pt. II Register.2. Shri A.C. Jain, ld. Advocate submits that the cash crunch in respect of the applicants is very severe and that the applicants were not in a position to deposit the amount as directed in the Stay Order. He submits that the applicants have sufficient amount in R.G. 23A Pt. II Register; that they may be permitted to debit the amount in that Register. He submitted that in an earlier case Birla Yamaha Ltd. v.CCE, Meerut reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 396, this Tribunal had permitted pre-deposit by debiting the Modvat amount in RG. 23A Pt. H.3. Shri P.K. Jain, ld. DR opposes the request and points out that a perusal of the Stay Order will show that it was the offer of the appellant on the basis of which the Tribunal had agreed that 25% of the amount may be deposited in cash and 25% of the duty demanded may be secured by Bank guarantee. He submits t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(113)ELT297TriDel
1. The short point involved in the appeal is whether the appellants can avail of benefit of SI. No. 40 of the Notification No. 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 or he should avail of benefit of Nil rate of duty provided at SI. No. 39 of the said notification.2. Shri V.B. Joshi, learned Advocate submitted that they are manufacturing plastic card cans from plastic granules and other metal items. During the process of manufacture, plastic sheets emerge at the intermediate stage. They had claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification 53/88. However, the Dept. directed them to avail of the total exemption from payment of duty under SI. No. 39 of the notification and ordered payment of duty on plastic sheets as benefit of Notification 217/86 will not be available to finished goods, being chargeable to nil rate of duty. He submitted that it is settled law that when two options are available to an assessee, he is free to opt for the option best suitable to him. He relied upon the decision in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC407
1. Learned Advocate Shri K. Kumar in support of the subject ROM application points out that the original authority vide its Order dated 2-4-1991 confiscated the imported goods under Section 11 (m) & (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but gave an option to the applicants for redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/-. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Two issues were involved in the appeal before the Tribunal which decided the same vide its Final Order No. C/2886/97-B2. The Tribunal vide its order gave the following directions in respect of those two issues :- 1. The matter relating to valuation is remanded to Adjudicating Authority for de now decision after disclosing evidence to the appellants and affording them a reasonable chance of being heard. 2. The part of the order which denies exemption under Notification No. 91/89, dated 1-3-1989 is set aside.3. He submits that the Tribunal has not directed anything regarding refund of the fine and penalt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT167TriDel
1. The assessees were manufacturing computers and also information display systems. They sought classification for both under Heading 84.71 and claimed benefit of Notification No. 76/86-C.E. A show cause notice was issued seeking denial of the exemption to the display system. The Assistant Collector in his order held that display systems were classifiable under Chapter Heading 85.31 and denied the benefit of the notification which was applicable to goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.71. In his order in appeal the Collector upheld denial of the notification. However, he held that the display boards were classifiable under Heading 84.79 and set aside the classification under Heading 85.31 decided by the Assistant Collector. Against this order the present appeal from Revenue is filed.2. We have heard Shri D.S. Negi, SDR for the Revenue. The respondents were not present.4. Heading 85.31 covered electric sound or visual signalling apparatus and specifically covered indicator panels. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT541TriDel
1. The appellants manufactured textiles. For printing of the textiles they made printing frames which were bolting cloth coated with sensitising chemicals. The department held such frames to be classifiable under Heading 5909.00 and demanded duty on such frames captively consumed. Before the Additional Collector, the claim was made that these goods merit classification under Heading 8442.00 and were covered under Notification No. 201/87. The Additional Collector in his order classified the products under 5909.00 and confirmed the demand.Hence this appeal.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Surat v. Kohinoor Dyg. & Ptg. Works, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1043 (Tribunal) in which printing frames made of photo sensitive chemicals coated fabric were classified under Heading 84.42. This judgment was later accepted by the Board in terms of Circular No. 51/51/94-CX, dated 30-8-1974 (sic). In view of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT226TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming duty of Rs. 7,83,252.52 p. on Absorbent Cotton Wool I.P. manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the period from 1987-88 to 1990-91 on the ground that they had wrongly availed the benefit of total exemption from duty in terms of Notification No. 185/87-C.E., dated 17-7-1987 which provides for exemption inter alia to absorbent Cotton Wool falling under GET sub-heading 30.04 subject to the condition that such goods are manufactured by a manufacturer by whom or on whose behalf, no such goods are sold under a brand name - the case of the department is that the appellants sold the product in dispute under the brand name "BRISK", and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,0007-.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-1-1990, the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of absorbent Cotton Wool I.P.falling under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT192TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed thrabove application in terms of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following question of law purported to have arisen out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/156/97-NB, dated 8-1-1997 :- "Whether under Rule 57H prior permission of the Assistant Commissioner is necessary before the assessee could take credit of duty paid on the inputs at the relevant time." The brief facts giving rise to the above application are that the respondents filed the declaration under Rule 57H on 2-4-1990 and took credit of Rs. 11,45,348.05 P soon afterwards on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of their final product without waiting for the permission of the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disallowed the amount of credit mentioned above on the ground that prior permission, which was required under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was not obtained. The Tribunal upheld the conten...
Tag this Judgment!