Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(32)ELT131TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India, which has been transferred to the Tribunal, and is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants are a partnership concern in the small scale sector engaged in the printing of pure silk sarees falling under Item 20 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were exempt from payment of duty.During the later half of 1980 they started on experimental basis hand printing of viscose sarees without the aid of any machine operated by power of steam. Man-made fabrics fall under Item 22. The appellants submit that they were not using any machine in the printing of these sarees and they were not liable to pay the additional duty of excise in terms of Notification No 179/72, dated 24-4-1972 as amended by Notification No. 298/79, dated 24-11-1979. On 28-11-1980 the Central Excise officers visited the premises of the appellants and seized 107 art silk sarees valued at Rs. 8,560.00. The appellants explained to the Assistant Collector an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(84)ELT127TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-7-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents are M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd., Pune.2. The matter relates to the eligibility of the goods for Captive Power Plant of M/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. ('GHC' for short), under exemption Notification No. 71/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985. The GHC were engaged in the manufacture of soda ash. For their energy requirements, they wanted to instal a Captive Power Plant. The Respondents - M/s.Thermax Pvt. Ltd. has imported boilers and accessories for use in the Captive Power Plant of GHC. Under exemption Notification No.71/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985, the goods falling under Heading No. 84.66 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Tariff) when imported for the Power Projects attracted nil rate of customs duty. The respondents had applied for registration of Contract under Heading No. 84.66 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(130)ELT500TriDel
1. In these five appeals, arising out of a common Order No.32/92-Collr., dated 30-6-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai, the issue involved is whether the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986 is available to the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Swicon Micro System Pvt. Ltd. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Swicon Micro System Pvt. Ltd. manufacture electronic testing and measuring instruments, electrical machinery, mechanical appliances, etc. On 26-2-1989, Central Excise Officers intercepted a vehicle No. MTF 2936 carrying electronic testing and welding instruments and temperature controllers valued at Rs. 1,78,337.50. The goods were affixed with brand name 'APLAB' which was concealed with stickers of 'Swicon'. The Officers also found 5 meters and 6 power supply valued at Rs. 22,000/- unaccounted in their factory premises. All the goods were seized by the Officers. A show cause notice dated 24-8-1989 was issued to them alleging tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai
2. This is an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.581/97 made in filed No. (24-KDL) CUS/COMMR/(A)/AHD dated 8.10.1997 whereunder he had held that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Custom, Kandla made in Order-in-Original No. KDL A.C./04/96 APPB. G.R.I dated 29.11.1996 confirming the duty short levied amounting to Rs.22,57,65,172/- demanded under show cause notice dated 30.10.1996 was wrong and allowed the appeal of the respondents.3. Respondents had been regularly importing heptene/nonene at Kandla.They were using these chemicals for manufacture of oxo chemicals at their factory. There was a dispute with regard to the classification as to whether heptene/nonene could be classified as "AIF/Motor Spirit" or "otherwise". According to the opinion of the Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi, if end use and flash point criteria are taken into consideration, then he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Limited against the Order-in-Original No. 87/2002-RP dated 31.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Horlicks falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 1901.92 of the Central Excise Tariff. They are availing Modvat credit on the inputs namely Hydrochloric Acid, caustic Soda Lye and Malted barely, Hydrochloric acid and caustic soda lye are common inputs for manufacture of horlicks which is dutiable, and ghee and husk are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. As per rule 57 C(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, modvat credit is not allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of Excise or are chargeable to NIL rate of duty. according to Rule 57C(2) of Central Excise Rules, where a manufacturer avails of the credit of specified duty on any inputs and is engaged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT680TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-Appeal No. 5/93, dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector, who by his order dropped the proceedings initiated by the issue of L.C. Demand Notice dated 28-1-1987. The Asstt. Collector has held that Bill of Entry 280/31-10-1986 was correctly assessed to nil rate of duty by the Customs Department in terms of Notification No. 262/58, dated 11-10-1958 in respect of imported one bulk-carrier vessel M.V. MARATHA DEEP in Oct., 19"86 by the importer appellants herein. The facts of the case are that the said bulk carrier was imported by the appellants having been purchased from M/s. Bravo Enterprises Ind. Ltd., Liberia.The said vessel arrived in Visakhapatnam from Australia carrying a bulk consignment of 27,000 M.Ts. of Cocking Coal. The vessel discharged part of cargo (15,000 M.Ts.) at Visakhapatnam and left for Haldia to discharge the balance cargo of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. Association of Seamless Tubes manufactures filed a petition before the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India alleging dumping into India of seamless tubes originating in or exported from Austria, Czeck Republic, Russia, Romania and Ukraine. Upon satisfaction that there was sufficient evidence regarding dumping, the Designated Authority initiated Anti Dumping investigation against the imports from these countries in respect of seamless tubes by issue of Public Notice dated 21st May, 1999. The authority published its preliminary findings vide notification dated 10th November, 1999. The preliminary findings recommended imposition of Provisional Anti Dumping duties.Subsequently, at the conclusion of investigations, which included hearing of the interested parties who took part in the investigations, the Authority notified its Final Findings on 19th May, 2000. The Final Findings recommended levy of Definitive Anti Dumping duties. The Anti Dumping duty was recommende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
M.V. Ravindran, J. 1. All these appeals raise a common question and are filed by the same assessee hence they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The relevant facts in brief that arises for consideration are the appellant herein is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), engaged in the manufacture of colors various types of pigments, flushes, inks, resins, varnishes and various other products. 3. The appellant has been granted permission to set up 100% Export Oriented Unit by the Development Commissioner, KSEZ, Kandla and has been granted license for setting up 100% EOU. Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Division 1, Vapi. Appellant herein cleared goods for exports, also cleared goods to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) based upon the various licenses and permissions granted by the Development Commissioner KSEZ. The appellant discharged appropriate duty liability on the clearances made to DTA including 4% additional customs duty (hereinafter referred to as SA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. The above quoted appeals are filed by Revenue against a common order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 64-69/CE/MRT-II/2005 dated 16.5.2005 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the appeals filed by respondents M/s HAS Chadha Exports set aside the order in original rejecting refund claim of the respondent and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for re-examination of the refund claims of the respondent in the light of the observations made in the order. 2. Revenue being aggrieved of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) have preferred these appeals on sole ground that as per Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Commissioner (Appeals) have no power to remand the case back for de novo adjudication. 3. The respondent has contested the appeals by filing cross-objection in respect of the above referred appeals and taken a position that in view of the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
1. The appellant filed this appeal against rejection of the refund claim of Rs.12,64,800/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Static Converter known as Uninterrupted Power Supply System (UPSS) classifiable under sub-heading 85044090 of the CETA, 1985. They availed CENVAT credit paid on the inputs. He submits that apart from that, they imported 1000 nos. of UPSS (1000 VA/800W C/W to M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd.) under Bill of Entry No. 724445 dated 7.12.2004 and availed CENVAT credit of Rs.9,10,701/- being the additional duty of customs. He further submits that they supplied the same item under the cover of invoice dated 29.12.2004 and 30.12.2004 under the description of 1000 nos. of UPSS (Numeric Digital 1.0 KVA Line Interactive UPS) to M/s. HCL Infosystems Ltd. Pondicherry under Invoice No. 2346 dated 29.12.2004 and 2349 dated 30.12.2004 on payment of duty. He ...
Tag this Judgment!