Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(149)ELT716TriDel
1.These are three appeals filed by M/s Shivagrico Implements Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SIL'), being aggrieved with the two separate orders-in-appeal, both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The issue for consideration in all these three appeals is, whether the benefit of modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 (as amended) could be availed of in respect of the duty paid inputs captively consumed in the manufacture of dutiable specified final products, in a case where the central excise duty on the inputs had been paid under Section 3-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s SIL were availing of the benefit of modvat credit in respect of re-rolled non-alloy steel products, bars, flats, angles etc.classifiable under sub-heading no. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, manutactured in their re-rolling mills, when u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1984)(16)ELT579TriDel
1. This combined order relates to the 15 appeals listed in the Annexure. Some of these are against the Orders-in-Original of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad or the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad; some are against the Orders-in-appeal of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras or the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad; and one is against the Order-in-Appeal of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Some of the appeals have been filed directly to the Tribunal, whereas the others have been transferred to it under the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act. All these 15 matters (henceforth referred to as "appeals") are being dealt with as appeals to the Tribunal under Section 35B, Central Excises and Salt Act, as amended.2. Since there are common issues involved in all these appeals (with some differences in individual cases, which will be referred to in their appropriate place), they were heard together, and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(12)ECC113
1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 27-5-1985. Since three appeals arise out of the same order, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants imported what is described in the relevant invoices and Bills of Entry is "100% polyester lining material size 44". The price as per invoice was US$ 0.35 C.I.F. and the suppliers are M/s Shabi Boeki Shokai, Higashi Ku P.O., Osaka, Japan. The import was effected in three vessels namely, "s.s. Raya Glory", "s.s. Raya Fortune" and "s.s. Portoroz". The ships arrived on 4-11-1983 and 2-12-1983. The Bills of Lading were dated as follows :-Raya Glory 25-3-83 A total quantity of 3,01,393 yards was imported and the value declared was Rs. 10,86,375/-. 29 Bills of Entry were filed. Originally details of 13 import licences issued under 0.1 and 0.2 of Appendix 17 of Import Policy AM 1983 were given in respect of 5 Bills of Entry of appellants M/s East Punjab Traders...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC385Tri(Delhi)
1. The merits of the dispute involved in the above-mentioned 4 appeals are admittedly not in issue before us in these proceedings in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K Spinning & Weaving Mills Lid.and Anr. v. Union of India A Others . The only issue which requires to be determined by us is that of limitation in respect of the demands in dispute.2. By its judgment in the J.K. Spinning A Weaving Mills Ltd. case, the Supreme Court upheld the retrospective amendment to Central Excise Rules 9 and 49 (the Central Excise Rules are hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which had the effect, inter alia, of making excisable goods removed from the place of their manufacture for manufacture of any other commodity within the said place or factory, liable to payment of Central Excise duty. The Court further held that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982, (which legislated the retrospective amendment) was subject to the provisions of Section HA of the Central Excises and Salt Act (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(28)LC165Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Chandra Industries, G.T. Road, Jalandhar have filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-original No. 3/CE/86 dated 24.3.1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Chandra Industries are manufacturers of Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Machinery falling under Tariff Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On. 30.4.1981, on an information, a contingent of the Divisional Preventive Staff attached to the Central Excise Division, Jalandhar conducted patrolling on the G.T. Road, and kept surveillance over M/s. Chandra Industries, Jalandhar. Nothing untoward was noticed during the course of patrolling but it was learnt from the people sitting in a tea stall near the party's factory premises that the appellants had removed a couple of refrigeration machines from the factory in a truck at about 22.00 hrs. Since the unit was reported to be working for one shift and was supposed to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)(42)LC38Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I, Collectorate Calcutta, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. The said appeal was received in the Registry at Calcutta on 12th January, 1989. Thereafter, a miscellaneous application No. E/Misc./428/89-D was received in the Registry on 17th August, 1989 making a prayer for raising the following additional grounds of appeal: 1. Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, Calcutta in his order in Appeal No. 122/Cal.-I/88 have classified 'Robinson's Patent Barley' under sub-heading No. 1101.90 in preference to sub-heading No. 1901.19. This classification is not correct in Law for the following reasons: (a) According to General Explanatory Note No. 1 to Rules for the interpretation of the Schedule, where the description of an article or group of articles under a heading is preceded by "-", the said article or group of articles shall be taken to be a sub-classificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(79)ELT485TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of the order dated 24-4-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, confirming demand of duty of Rs. 14,69,880/- on 4 milling machines viz. 2 Nos. HB 630 and 2 Nos. VA 50 imported by the appellants in terms of Phased Manufacturing Programme with agreement with M/s. Hitachi Seiki Company of Japan and imposing penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs upon the appellants and Rs. 10,000/- upon Shri Chokor L. Doshi, Managing Director of the company and Rs. 5,000/- upon Shri M. Mohan Das, General Manager of the Cooper Division of the company.2. The facts leading up to the filing of the appeals are briefly as follows: The appellants are a DGTD Unit who obtained approval for a Phased Manufacturing Programme (hereinafter referred to PMP) for the manufacture of machining centres in collaboration with M/s. Hitachi Seiki of Japan. Under Phase-1 of approved PMP, the appellants were permitted to import 10 machining centres (2 pieces each of 5 models proposed to be manufactured VA ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT241TriDel
1. M/s. Ranutrol Ltd. of New Delhi have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs.The Collector of Customs in his Order-in-Original had held : "I order confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1.962. However, I allow the importer to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). Assessable value of the subject consignment shall be worked as shown in the Annexure to this order. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Option to redeem the goods should be exercised within a month. Penalty shall be paid forthwith." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants filed a Bill of Entry on 31-10-1990 declaring the goods as component parts of Expansion Valve and component parts of Dial Thermometers. The value of the goods was declared to be Rs. 4,99,209.00 c.i.f. The importers also claimed clearance of the goods under OGL...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC591
1. These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95, dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi.Following are the particulars of the appellants :______________________________________________________________Appeal No. Name of the appellant Referred to asE/ 209/ 96- A M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITCE/210/96-A J.N. Sapru -E/211/96-A J. Narayan -E/288/96-A M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATCE/289/96-A M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette HDCF Factory Ltd.E/290/96-A M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Co. LTCE/291/96-A M/s. Reliable Cigarettes RCTI and Tobacco IndustriesE/292/96-A M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTCE/293/96 M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. CTCE/294/96-A R. Bhoothalingam 2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1-3-1983 to 28-2-1987 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-_____________________________________________________________Concern Duty proposed Duty confirmed Penalty Penalty (in rupees) (in rupees) in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC631
1. Prior to its amendment on 27.12.1985, Section 11A of the then Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 {now called Central Excises Act, 1944, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), provided that for recovery of central excise duty not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid, notice was to be served, on the person chargeable with the central excise duty, which had not been levied or paid or which had been short levied or short paid, by a Central Excise Officer. The power to determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person on whom the notice had been served, was to be exercised by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, A question had arisen whether this power could be exercised by the Collector of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise was an officer subordinate to the Collector of Central Excise. There were a few decisions of the Tribunal wherein it had been held that even though under Sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Act, Asstt. Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!