Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(116)ELT220TriDel
1. The captioned four appeals arise out of the same order, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that an intelligence was received that M/s. Montana Valves and Compressors Pvt. Ltd. have imported certain consignments of Marine Engineering goods including Torrington bearing system under the guise of 'Ship stores' and cleared the same without payment of duty. The goods in fact were diverted and sold in the local market. Pursuant to this intelligence the premises of M/s.Montana Valves and Compressors were searched alongwith the premises of M/s. Alankar Shipping and Clearing Agents. Scrutiny of the seized records revealed that on and around June, 1993, M/s. Montana Valves & Compressors Pvt. Ltd. imported a consignment of 600 numbers of Torrington Bearing System from Singapore. M/s. Alankar Shipping & Clearing Agents acted for the importer to clear the goods. Bill of Entry was filed on 8-6-1993. Cargo w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(130)ELT595TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Original dated 9-4-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had raised demand for payment of differential duty of Rs. 4,59,449/- under Section 28(i) in respect of goods already cleared and of Rs. 11,05,868/- regarding the goods to be cleared under the proviso to said Section of the Customs Act and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellant firm and of Rs. 1,00,000/- on its Manager (Imports) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants have been importing Polypropylene Dyed Chips through Delhi Port. They filed two Bills of Entry viz. B/E No. 272643 and 272455 both dated 24/23/98 (sic) for CIF value of Rs. 3,11,168/- and Rs. 2,90,223 /- respectively. The item under import was declared then as Polypropylene Dyed Chips and classified under CTH No. 3902.10. They also claimed benefit of Notification 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT487TriDel
1. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate appearing in the ROM Application filed by Shri Sandeep Batra submits that the prayer made in the ROM Application is for recall of Final Order Nos. A/875-877/98-NB (DB), dated 9-10-1998 by which three appeals filed respectively by (i) M/s.Nova Udyog Ltd., (ii) M/s. Maharashtra Steels Ltd. and (iii) Shri Sandeep Batra (the present applicant) were heard and disposed of. On consideration of the submissions made by the appellants in the three appeals, the Tribunal was pleased to remand all the three appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut for affording the appellants an opportunity to cross examine Shri O.P. Singh, Inspector.2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the appeal filed by Shri Sandeep Batra (the present applicant) was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the said Appellant under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In Paragraph 16 of the Final Order of the Tribunal, though the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(114)ELT926TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 29-9-1994 of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay vide which he upheld the order of Assistant Collector and rejected their appeal.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of self copy papers, namely tally paper (carbonised adding M/c roll), T.P. rolls with carbonless paper, NCR rolls with carbonless paper, etc. They filed classification list in respect of these goods bearing Nos. 16/89, 18/89, 6/89 (20/89) under sub-heading 4809/4816 and claimed exemption under Notification 44/86, dated 10-2-1986 i.e., concessional rate of duty. Their classification was accordingly approved by the Assistant Collector. But subsequently it revealed that their products were not covered by Notification No. 44/86 and they were denied the benefit of the said notification. This view of the Revenue was upheld by the Tribunal even in the case of appellants themselv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT360TriDel
1. In this appeal the issue involved is whether Modvat credit under Rule 57A is available in absence of specific sub-heading mentioned in the declaration filed under Rule 57G.2. Shri Shiv Das learned Advocate submitted that in the manufacture of their final product winding wire, the appellants are using copper wires of dimensions more than 6 mm and less than 6 mm falling under sub-headings 7408.11 and 7408.19 respectively; that prior to 1988 copper wire of all dimensions were covered under Heading 7405.90 and accordingly they had filed declaration declaring copper wire falling under Heading 7405. He finally submitted that as the inputs have been received and used within the factory in the manufacture of final product the benefit of Modvat credit should not be denied for merely not mentioning of sub-heading 7408.11. He also relied upon Tribunal's decision in the case of Anil Steel Inds. v. C.C.E. [Final Order No.89/97-NB, dated 8-1-1997; 1997 (92) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal)].3. Shri M.P. Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT111TriDel
1. This Reference application filed by the Revenue for referring the following question of law to the Honble High Court for their valuable opinion: Whether a protest letter will still held even when the classification list is approved finally on the issue for which protest was filed earlier to the approval of the classification list".3. In this case the Revenue wants to refer the question "whether a protest letter will still hold even when the classification list is approved". We find that the Tribunal in the Final Order held that after the approval of the classification list the assessee is paying duty at the higher rate under protest as evidenced from the letter dated 30-8-1976. Under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the question that could be referred to the Hon'ble High Court should arise out of the order. The question before the Tribunal was whether the duty was paid under protest. It was purely a question of fact and not law.Therefore, no question of law is arising o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT132TriDel
1. In the impugned order ld. Commissioner demanded differential duty of Rs. 6,89,540/- appropriated an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs deposited by the appellants as security and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The appellants imported a consignment of goods declaring them as DECALCOMANIA PAPERS in the Bill of Entry. The Department alleged that Explanatory Notes under Chapter Heading 4908.10 explains "Transfers (decalcomanias) consist of pictures, designs or lettering in single or multiple colours, lithographed or otherwise printed on absorbent...." 3. Accordingly, the importer was asked to explain as to why the paper imported by them should not be classified under Heading 4908.90 as against their claim of its classification under Heading 4908.10. The second issue that was raised by the Department was that the imported items were not covered by OGL provisions and required a specific licence.4. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)LC171Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point for determination in these appeals is whether the net fabric woven on looms manufactured by the respondent is classifiable under Chapter Heading 5206 as claimed by the respondent or 5804.90 as held by tho Department.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of mosquito net fabric. They filed a Classification List first under Chapter Heading 5804.90. The classification list was approved by the Asstt. Collector under Chapter Heading 5206. However, subsequently a SCN was issued to the respondents herein wherein it was proposed that the classification of the product will be under Chapter sub-heading 5804.90. The Asstt. Collector classified the woven fabric under Chapter sub-heading 5804.90. He relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mehta Netting v. C.C.E. reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 316. On appeal ld. Collector (Appeals) held that if netting fabric is woven, it will fall under Chapter 52 and allowed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(116)ELT45TriDel
1. Appellants have filed written submissions and have requested for decision of the appeals on merits on the material available on the record as well as the written submission filed by them on 25-10-1999.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) New Delhi dated 1-6-1998 by which Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 89,384/-was disallowed on three items, namely, electric wires and cables, doshion exchanger and water softening plant under Rule 57Q.Commissioner (Appeals) had denied credit on electric wires and cables on the basis of two decisions of the Tribunal, namely J.K. Pharmachem Ltd. v. C.C.E.Southern Iron and Steels Co.Ltd. v. C.C.E., [1998 (74) ECR 116]. As regards doshion exchanger and water softening plant credit was denied on the ground that both the items are required for treatment of water, which is used for softening of hard water. The Assistant Commissioner has held that these items were not used for producing or processing of goods for bringing about a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT801TriDel
1. The appellants vide letter dated 21-10-1999 made a request to decide the appeal on merit.2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26-11-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. drums. On 23-6-1990 a tempo bearing No. MRQ 3683 was intercepted by the officers of the Revenue. The gate passes accompanying tempo under which the goods were cleared shown a description of goods as waste and scrap of the metal. On examination of the goods it was found that along with some scrap the drums and components of drums were also in the tempo.4. The adjudicating authority issued the show cause notice and after hearing the appellants held that the appellants were clearing drums and components of drums under the cover of waste and scrap and ordered the confiscation of the goods. The goods were released on redemption fine and a penalty was also imposed on the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!