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 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 Delhi
Per Mathew John, J. In this proceeding the main appellants, namely, A.G. Corporation, Coir Cushion Ltd. and Overseas Business Corporation, are three importers who imported thirty two consignments of apparently the same goods declared to be components of Digital Satellite Receiver/ Satellite Receiver/ Receiver DVB Set etc of Chinese origin shipped from Hongkong and also from Chinese Ports. Out of these items the main item was Populated Circuit Boards (PCB). These goods were sold to mainly to M/s Rishav Udyog which was a proprietorship firm of Mr. Kamal Pat Surana, for use in assembling receivers for Direct to Home (DTH) transmission of TV signals. 2. At the time of initial assessment of goods customs suspected undervaluation of the goods. For goods with declared value varying from HK$ 20 to HK $ 30 per piece the customs department loaded the value to values in the Range of HK$ 20.50 to HK$ 42.75 in different consignments. But later the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence did more invest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The appellant are a company registered in India and are subsidiary of M/s GAP International Sourcing, Inc., U.S.A. who are a prominent retailer in U.S.A. and other countries. The appellant entered into a service support agreement with M/s GAP, U.S.A. for rendering various services relating to procurement of goods recommending fabrics to be used for manufacture of garments, recommending vendors from which fabrics, yarn, zippers, buttons, snap fasteners etc. can be procured, reporting the status of manufacture of products by the chosen vendors, analyzing the reports of the samples sent by the vendors, giving recommendation about the product integrity, inspecting export consignments and issuing inspection certificates, screening the vendors suitability in terms of child labour norms and pollution control norms and recommending the teams to be engaged in logistic work like transportation, clearing and forwarding etc. for export of the purchased products out of India. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. All the five appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri R K. Mishra, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Jitin Singhal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee, I find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of different kind of excisable goods. They were receiving the services of goods transport operator during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. In terms of provisions of rule 2(i)(d)(xvi) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 a recipient of services of GTA were to pay the service tax. The said Rule was struck down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati vs. Union of India [ 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC)]. 3. Thereafter the law was amended retrospectively vide Finance Bill 2000 and 2003 and the recipient of GTA services were made liable to pay the tax from the beginning. In the light of the a...
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 Delhi
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.9.2011 passed by Commissioner (Adjudication), New Delhi by which the adjudicating authority has disallowed the cenvat credit availed by the appellants and ordered recovery of inadmissible cenvat credit amounting to Rs.50,65,946/- from the appellants under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority also ordered recovery of interest on wrongly availed cenvat credit and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of two wheelers falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was availing cenvat credit facilities in respect of tool kits and medical kits sold along with two wheelers. During the cour...
Tag this Judgment!