Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2003
Reported in : (2003)(158)ELT759Tri(Mum.)bai
..... to rs. 4,10,27,681/- by alleging that plot no. 48 and 49 are in fact one unit and explosives emerges at plot no. 48 and 49, as a result of application of section vi of the central excise tariff act. it was further stated that bmd vehicle cannot be treated as workshop, consequently exemption granted to goods manufactured in a workshop ..... .9.1994 to dec. 1996, by invoking the extended period of limitation in terms of section 11-a of the central excise act, besides the allegation of manufacture of explosives at plot no. 48 and 49, in view of note 2 to section vi of the central excise tariff act, revenue alleged that appellant had recovered the amount of central excise duty from the customer .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-11-2003
Reported in : (2003)(155)ELT91Tri(Mum.)bai
..... made for the extended period is hit by limitation. the following judgments witness this ruling - (1) the storage in three compartments of the ingredients necessary to manufacture prepared explosives in the same van did not amount to manufacture and that the provisions of rule 2(a) of the rules for interpretation of central excise tariff did not apply. ..... and could not fall under the ambit of the aforesaid rule. the belief of the commissioner that these three ingredients carried separately in the same van were prepared explosives incomplete or unprepared form has no substance and must be rejected.5. as the second argument before him the assessees claimed that the goods on final mixing at ..... to evade payment of duty. in the absence of any specific averment to this effect, the proviso to section 11a does not come into operation. no such allegation is made in the show cause notice at all. the act of not taking a licence is described as wilful but there is nothing to sustain the invocation of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on : Jan-01-2003
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT768Tri(Bang.)
..... rs. 47,11,087/- is not sustainable both on merits as well as on the issue of limitation. the assessee is manufacturing prepared explosives falling under chapter 36 of the central excise tariff act. they are also manufacturing spent nitric acid falling under tariff sub-heading 2808.10. they filed classification list and accordingly their products namely, ..... the period from december, 1991 to december, 1994. since such information was within the knowledge of the department there is no reason for invoking the proviso to section 11a.3. the commissioner took the view that the department had not made any further investigation into the explanation offered by the assessee namely that the alleged excess ..... fair or proper to reject its explanation. on the question of limitation also we find that the commissioner is fully justified in taking the view that proviso to section 11a cannot be invoked in the facts of the case. the show cause notice is dated 26-9-94. in the rt-12 returns filed by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided on : Jan-30-2003
Reported in : (2003)(87)ECC93
..... press v. collector of customs, new delhi, 1994 (72) elt 620 (t) and also the judgment rendered by the hon'ble high court at calcutta, in the case of indian explosives ltd. v. collector of customs, 1992 (60) elt 111 (cal.). on the other hand, ld. jdr has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order of the commissioner.5. ..... to the case of the appellants. therefore, keeping in view of the above referred facts and circumstances, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants under section 112(d) of the customs act and reduce the redemption fine to rs. 25,000. except for this modification, the impugned order of the commissioner customs is maintained. the appeal of the ..... 's impugned order-in-original no. s8/205/98-siib dated 4.6.1998. the commissioner of customs had ordered the confiscation of the goods under section 111(d) & (m) of the customs act, but given an option to the appellants for redemption of the same on payment of fine of rs. 1,50,000 and also further imposed penalty .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Decided on : Nov-21-2003
Reported in : (2004)(92)ECC312
..... pleaded that it is a well settled law that transportation charges from factory gate to depot and turnover tax are allowable deduction under section 4 of central excise act.6. shri l. narasimha murthy learned jdrappeared on behalf of the revenue. he pleaded that in these cases, the orders passed by ..... , they are being disposed of by this common order.3. the fact in brief are that m/s premier explosives ltd are manufacturers of prepared explosives. they clear the explosives manufactured by them by stock transfer to their depots and consignment agents on payment of duty on the basis of ..... commissioner (appeals) are liable to be set aside as the same are contrary to the provisions of section 4 of central excise act. in terms of section 4(2) of central excise act, 1944 where the price of excisable goods for delivery at the place of removal is not known and ..... 1. these are the four appeals filed by m/s premier explosives ltd. against order nos. 74/99 (h-iii) ce, 75/99 (h-iii) ce, 76/99 (h-iii) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-28-2003
Reported in : (2004)(91)ECC484
..... relevant rule governing input duty credit is rule 3 of the cenvat credit rules, 2001. the ground on which the credits taken by the appellants in these appeals on explosives under the said rule was disallowed by the lower appellate authority is that the said goods does not fit in the definition of "input" under clause (f) of ..... v. birla corporation ltd., 2002 (146) elt 215, this submission is not contested. in the cited cases, one of the issues considered by this bench was whether the explosives used by the respondents for mining limestone at sites outside their cement factory were eligible inputs for modvat purpose. in each of the two cases, the relevant period was april ..... therefore, apply to the instant cases as well.accordingly, these two appeals are also allowed.6. if any deposit made by any of these appellants under section 35-f of the central excise act is lying with the department, the same shall be refunded to them as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 30 days from the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-07-2003
Reported in : (2004)(165)ELT534TriDel
..... of the apex court judgment in jaypee rewa cement supra shows that modvat credit is available to an assessee in respect of the explosives used for the manufacture of intermediate product which product is then used in the manufacture of the final product. but after the amendment ..... ltd. - 2002 (147) e.l.t. 877 and that for the earlier period, the appellants had been allowed modvat credit on the explosives. he had also submitted that the amended definition of the input which came into force from 1-7-2000 did not stand on a ..... 83.587/- which has been confirmed against them through the impugned order-in-appeal by the commissioner (appeals), by disallowing them modvat credit on explosives used outside the factory premises.2. the learned counsel has contended that the case of the appellants stands squarely covered by jaypee rewa cement ..... terms of the stay order shall result in dismissal of the appeal without prior notice under section 35f of the act. to come up for reporting compliance on 19-11-2003. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-06-2003
Reported in : (2004)(93)ECC24
..... to official records and entries therein are entered on the basis of certain internal documents and that too with the full knowledge of the management; that as per section 36a of the central excise act, the contents of any document seized from the custody or control of any person shall be presumed to be true unless the contrary is proved. he emphasized ..... of fabric was sent with the price-list for the purpose of valuation and the same had nothing to do with the classification. he relied upon the decision in rajasthan explosives & chemicals ltd. v. cce, jaipur, 2003 (85) ecc 85 (t) wherein the tribunal has held that "if there are documents for the clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-27-2003
Reported in : (2003)(161)ELT540Tri(Mum.)bai
..... ) or where such goods are not sold to such dealers, to dealers (being related persons), who sell such goods in retail --".54. the definition of a manufacturer under section 2(f) of the act at the material time included any person who engaged in the production or manufacture of excisable goods and also one who hired labour in the production or manufacture ..... of such goods.55. the charge in the show cause notice does not claim relationship in terms of section 4 of the act, between jre and bil but makes out bil as the manufacturer denying the independent existence of jre by calling them a dummy.56. as against the charge in ..... .o.i [1988 (38) e.l.t. 535 and 1989 (39) e.l.t. 493] where the job worker was held to be the manufacturer in terms of section 2(f) of the act and the basis of assessment of the goods cleared by him to the principal manufacturer was determined as the sum total of cost of raw materials, cost of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Jan-21-2003
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT627TriDel
..... properly imported and utilised for intended purpose of manufacturing life saving drugs; that thus confiscation is bad in law; that penalty cannot be imposed under section 112 of the act as the goods were not available for confiscation.4. countering the arguments, shri v. valte, learned sdr, submitted that the exemption under notification ..... an accepted principles of pharmaceutical industry; that the concept of loan licence manufacturer is also recognised under the provisions of central excise act; that section 2(f) of the central excise act defines 'manufacturer' which shall include not only a person who employs a hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable ..... jurisdiction to issue notice for recovery of differential duty".3.3 finally the learned advocate submitted that section 111 of the customs act cannot be invoked in this case as none of the stipulations in the section have been contravened as confiscation could be resorted to only to the improperly imported goods; that .....
Tag this Judgment!