Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT751TriDel
"The charge of contravention of Rules 9(1) and 173F of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for facilitating evasion of duty also stands proved inasmuch as the party had failed to determine and discharge their duty liability correctly on Sorbitol cleared by them to M/s. Sarabhai M. Chamicals, Baroda. They have, therefore, become liable to be penalised under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944".The Commissioner then ordered that demand of duty amounting to Rs. 81,32,904/- is confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs was also imposed on the appellants. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufactured Sorbitol. The Govt. of India issued Notification No. 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 prescribing effective rate of duty of 5% ad valorem for other bulk drugs falling under Chapters 28, 29 or 30 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This notification explained the expression 'bulk drug'. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)LC213Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are a subsidiary of M/s. Berger Paints (I) Ltd., Calcutta. Under an agreement with Berger Paints, the appellants manufacture paints and varnishes which are liable to duty under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Upon manufacture, the paint is handed over by the appellants to Berger Paints who carries out the marketing.2. Prior to 1-4-1993, the appellant had adopted the wholesale prices at which M/s. Berger Paints sold the goods as the basis for working out the assessable value of the paints and duty was being paid at the assessable value so worked out. There were disputes about the deductions to be allowed while working out the assessable value from the sale price of Berger Paints. Commissioner of Central Excise (A) passed Order-in-Appeal Nos. 974-975 (513-514-Ahd) C.E./Collr.(A)/Ahd., dated 20-1-1993 which was subject matter of further appeal before this Tribunal and the Tribunal passed its Order Nos. 739-740/95-A, dated 8-11-1995 on the elements eli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)LC473Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Safari Industries (India) Ltd. are manufacturers of travel goods, hand bags and similar containers. The issue involved in the present appeal is the classification of the item sold by the appellants as "traveller". The appellants claimed classification of the item under Chapter Heading 4201.90 claiming it to be plastic trunk. They also claimed that the item is different from suitcases, as trunks are different from suitcases, and that Heading 4201.10 which covers "suitcases, vanity cases, executive cases, briefcases and vanity bags all sorts" would not cover trunks. This contention of the appellant did not find favour with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. He held that trunk is a kind of suitcase and is covered by suitcases all sorts.This finding was given after considering various factors like the use of the products the dictionary meaning of the terms suitcases and trunks and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Central Excise Rules which provides that go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT100TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 153/98-CAU, dated 14-11-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chennai-I.2. The appellants had imported a consignment of 760 KVA gensets, Model 760 from M/s Kohler, Singapore vide Bill of Entry No. 60405, dated 23-10-1998. The value declared for the purpose of assessment was US $ 92,117.34 FOB. The Custom department at Chennai was of the view that the declared value of the present consignment appeared to be lower than the value declared for the gensets Model 750 ROZD imported by the appellants during September, 1998. The appellants were directed to produce price list of the supplier and the country of origin certificate. The Commissioner, Customs who passed the impugned order-in-original dated 14-11-1998 discarded the invoice value and enhanced the same to US $ 88,235/-. He was also of the view that the discount 40 % shown in the price list was not available to the appellant, but however...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(160)ELT1165TriDel
1. At the outset, Shri J.P. Kaushik, ld. Advocate submits that the SCN stipulated that M/s. Shri Radha Krishna Dyes Chem (P) Limited, M/s.G.L. Dyes (P) Limited and M/s. Excelsior Fabrics (P) Limited were dummy units of M/s. East India Cotton Manufacturing Co. Limited; that alleging that these dummy units have neither any knowledge nor any interest in the purchase of raw materials; that they are not interested at what rate and from what source the raw material is being procured; that these dummy units were created by the appellants in order to avail the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86. He submits that no SCN was issued to these dummy units. Thus there has been complete failure of natural justice and prays that on this count alone, the appeal may be allowed.2. Shri K. Srivastava, ld. SDR submits that the SCN was issued to the appellants and since the appellants' company had created other units only for availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and, therefore there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT215TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of the notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of respondents.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 25-1-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the benefit of Notification No. 215/84-C.E., dated 9-11-1984 was allowed in respect of goods cleared by the respondents for exhibition purposes.3. Learned SDR who appeared on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondents cleared two textile manufacturing machines for display in Exhibition organized by the Southern Gujarat Chamber of Commerce & Industry. He submits that at the time of clearance of the machines the respondents could not obtain the requisite Certificate from the State Government as per the condition of the Notification No. 215/84-C.E. He submits that the requisite certificate issued by the State Government was produced thereafter. Therefore, the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT680TriDel
1. This is a Reference application against the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/422/98-NB, dated 10-6-1998 1998 (103) E.L.T. 679 (Tribunal). Shri Dubey learned DR, requested for condonation of delay of four days in filing the Reference Application. The reason advanced by him is the bifurcation of Commissionerate of Central Excise, Indore and the matter pertains to the Commissionerate which came into existence at that time.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate has no objection in condoning the delay.3. As the reason advanced by the Revenue in filing the Reference Application late is convincing and the delay is also of four days, the same is condoned.4. Shri Dubey, learned DR, submits that the Modvat credit was disallowed by the Commissioner as the invoice on the strength of which Modvat credit was availed, did not contain the information prescribed under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal should not have allowed the Modvat credit on the basis that the Assistant Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT211TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988 is available in respect of stainless steel tubes and pipes manufactured by M/s.Rajendra Mechanical Ltd. 2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, and perused the records.Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Notification No.202/88, dated 20-5-1988 provides exemption to tubes and pipes blanks.Since the Notification does not mention stainless steel the benefit of notification cannot be extended to the tubes made of stainless steel.3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. We find that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has held : "Note (1) (d) of Chapter 72 defines steel as ferrous material other than those of Heading 7303. It is settled...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(68)ECC110
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Ador Thermal Engineering Ltd. is whether cable fittings for electrical machines made from duty paid wires and cables are classifiable under Heading 85.47 or 85.44 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and whether duty can be demanded for the past six months period.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the appellants in spite of notice. We observe that even at the earlier occasions none has appeared on their behalf. Therefore, we proceed with the disposal of the appeal after hearing Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative and perusal of the records. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that it is now well settled law that the classification once approved can be modified by following the principles of natural justice. He, further, submitted that the issue regarding classification of the impugned product has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Advanced Radio Masts Ltd. v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT743TriDel
1. The items on which credit taken during the month of March 1996 has been disallowed to the appellants who are manufacturers of grey cement, are as follows : 3. HMT, Heavy Vehicle Duty, Rotating Centre with Shank, Follow Rest Dia, Coolant Equipment, splatch Guard for L-45, Tapper Turning Attach and Machine Lamp 2. I have heard Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate and Shri T.A.Arunachalam, learned DR and record my findings hereunder : 1. Surge Arresters : These are used as a component of transformer and its function is to arrest lightning in the atmosphere which can otherwise damage the main transformer. I find that goods falling under sub heading 90.30 and vised in the factory of the manufacturer has been specified as capital goods under clause (i)(d) of the explanation to Rule 57Q(1). The Department does not dispute that this item has been used in the factory of the manufacturer; the ground of denial of credit to this item is that it does not assist in the process of manufacture of f...
Tag this Judgment!