Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(96)ECC73; 2004(171)ELT289(SC); JT2004(7)SC152; 2004(3)SCALE6; (2004)7SCC344
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II, against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2002 of Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short CEGAT) by which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing CENVAT Credit to the respondent M/s. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., on explosives used in mines was dismissed.2. The assessee carries on the business of manufacturing cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee has been granted a mining lease by the Government of Rajasthan and the limestone excavated from the mines is used for manufacture of cement. The mining area is at a distance of few kilometers from the plant where the cement is manufactured. Explosives are used for blasting purpose in the mines. During the period April to August 2000, the assessee took CENVAT Credit under Rule 57AB of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC141; 2005(103)ECC1; 2005(189)ELT3(SC); JT2005(12)SC435; 2005(8)SCALE435; (2005)8SCC300
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation of an exemption notification dated 28.02.1982, as amended by several notifications, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 05.03.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short, 'the Tribunal) in Appeal No.E/1801/02, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 01.02.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) Vadodara, was dismissed.2. The Appellant, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the manufacture and production of excisable goods, i.e. cardboard containers. It is a Small Scale Industry. It opted for the benefit contained in Section AA of Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to avail the MODVAT credit of the specified duties on plastic coated paper known as 'LDPE coated paper'. It, however, did not avail of any MODVAT credit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(118)ECC43; 2007LC43(SC); 2007(211)ELT353(SC); JT2007(5)SC597; 2007(5)SCALE767; (2007)4SCC440
S.H. Kapadia, J.Civil Appeal No. 570 of 2002:1. Appellant-M/s Virion Textile Mills Ltd. is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the manufacture of Texturised Polyester Yarn and Dyed Polyester Yarn. The said yarn is sold against foreign exchange by the appellant in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) subject to permission given by the competent authority under para 9.10(b) of Export and Import Policy (Exim Policy) 1997-2002. In this civil appeal, the question for consideration is the rate of duty applicable to sales falling under para 9.10 (b).2. On 4.11.1999 a show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai to the appellant stating that the appellant was not paying appropriate duties on the goods cleared as per the permission granted by the Development Commissioner. According to the show cause notice, the appellant had paid Countervailing duty (CVD) @ 30% on Texturised Polyester Yarn plus Rs. 9 per kg. on Dyed Polyester Yarn cleared under para 9.10 (b) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(129)ECC115; 2008(155)LC115(SC); 2008(227)ELT20(SC); 2008(8)SCALE660; (2008)7SCC520; 2008(13)SCC579; 2009AIRSCW379
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant-assessee under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') against Final Order No. 186/2002-B dated 14.05.2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. E/5482/92-B.2. The point involved in this appeal is, whether the final products manufactured by the appellant are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1.8.1983, as amended from time to time.3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal, are as under:4. Appellant-assessee, hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee' is engaged in the manufacture of Steel bars and rods falling under sub-heading 7228.30 and steel ingots falling under sub-heading 7226.20 of Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'the Tariff Act'). The Government of India vide Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1st August, 1983, as amended by Notification No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1991(52)ELT168(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition the counter affidavit filed herein on 6-3-90 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Mahesh Jet Malani for Mr. Raju K. Lukose Advocate for the Petitioners and of Mr. P. Raja Manickam, Central Government Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this date, the court made the following order :- The Petitioner are the accused in CC No. 31 of 1989 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee. The prosecution has been initiated against the petitioners on a private complaint preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Headquarters Preventive Unit, Madras, the respondent herein, for violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules framed thereunder. 2. This petition has been filed seeking to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings pending before the Court below as n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(129)ECC24; 2008(155)LC24(Madras); (2008)6MLJ80
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the show cause notice issued by the second respondent dated 04.10.2007, under which the second respondent has directed the petitioner to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise, as to why the goods, viz., (i) 'SAKTHI'/'STC' branded Bajji Bonda Powder should not be classified under Sub Heading 2108.99 of erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 and 2106.9099 of the present First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) the goods viz., 'SAKTHI'/'STC' branded Tamarind Rice Powder, Lemon Rice Powder, Garlic Rice Powder, Dhall Powder and Chilly Chutney Powder should not be classified under Sub Heading 2103.90 of erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 and 2103.9040 of the present First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (iii) as to why the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act,1944 should not be invoked and Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC611; (2005)2CALLT83(SC); 2005(98)ECC177; 2005(179)ELT272(SC); (2005)1SCC745
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. These appeals under section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the said 1944 Act') are filed by the Department seeking to challenge the order dated 26.4.1999 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') in appeal No. E/689-692 of 1995.2. The facts giving rise to these civil appeals, briefly stated, are as follows:On 17th December, 1993 M/s. Eswaran & Sons Engineers Limited (hereafter referred to as 'the assessee') was engaged in the manufacture of Minimum Oil Circuit Breakers. The assessee paid duty by classifying the same under Tariff sub heading 8535 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. According to the Department the item was classifiable under sub heading 8537. Accordingly, four show cause notices were issued on; 17.12.1993 for the period 30.6.1993 to 31.8.1993; show cause notice dated 4.4.1994 for the period 13.9.1993 to 30.9.1993; show cause notice dated 31.5.1994...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(99)ECC761; 2005(183)ELT119(SC); JT2005(5)SC563; (2005)4SCC163; [2005]141STC296(SC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. During the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, the respondent Textile Mills cleared grey cotton canvas clothes and grey cotton fabrics, without payment of any central excise duty on the ground that the products were classifiable under Chapter 52 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act 1985 under which the rate of excise duty was nil at the relevant point of time. According to the Revenue Authorities the goods were classifiable under sub-heading 5911.90 of the Tariff and liable for central excise duty at the rates specified on the Tariff. A show cause notice was issued on 27th December, 2000 why central excise duty should not be recovered and why penal action should not be taken against the respondent. In the meanwhile the respondent-Textile Mills were closed down in September, 1997 and Moti Lal Traders started functioning from the same premises with the same machinery.2. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise relying on the case of Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE Nagpu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(6)BomCR328; 2006(198)ELT161(SC); 2006(5)SCALE501; (2006)5SCC188
Markandey Katju, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the, final judgment and order dated 12th September, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), West Zone, Mumbai. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Two questions are involved in this appeal - (i) the classification of the tiles manufactured by the appellant and consequential liability of the appellant to pay differential duties on the same; and (ii) whether the notice issued demanding excise duty is barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The respondent manufactures ceramic tiles. Some of the tiles are described as polished while others as unpolished. The classification for both the polished and unpolished tiles was claimed under heading 6901.90 of the tariff and the classification was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)ALD344; 2003(159)ELT17(AP)
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras (for short 'CEGAT') has referred the following question to this Court under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (for short 'the Act') at the instance of the assessee.'Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the items Wire Mesh and WoolenFelts are not inputs under Rule 57-A of CE Rules, 1944, inspite of specific exclusion as given therein and the items in question do not come under that category for the reasons set out in the order ?'The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited (for short 'the Company') are the manufacturers of papers and paper Boards in their factory at Sirpur Kaghaznagar in Andhra Pradesh. Their final products fall under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff. They are availing MODVAT under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short 'the rules') relating to MODVAT Credit Scheme in respect of the following items after filing the declaration dated 31...
Tag this Judgment!