Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(11)LC369Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a proceeding initiated and filed as an "Appeal" against the Orders of the Tribunal Nos. 313 to 367/1984-A (in Appeal Nos. 1847/83-A and 192 to 245/84-A) praying for the award of interest in a sum of Rs. 60,91,318.00 on the fine in lieu of confiscation paid in excess nearly 17 years ago together with Rs. 2,30,474.00 alleged to have been paid towards guarantee commission by the applicant to the bank on "excess Bank guarantee amount".2. Briefly, the allegations appearing in the "appeal" supplemented from facts from the relevant papers in the record are - (a) pursuant to orders in adjudication by the Collectors of Customs, Bombay and Calcutta, certain imported goods were confiscated absolutely in some cases and subject to redemption on payment of a fine in lieu thereof in certain others ; (b) various appeals preferred against such orders, were disposed of by the Board of Central Excise and Customs in six orders between 1.6.1968 and 13.3.1969 by which redemption on payment of va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(115)ELT238TriDel
1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench for consideration is, whether the benefit of small scale exemption under exemption Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, as amended by Notification No.223/87-C.E., dated 22-9-1987, and subsequent exemption Notification No.1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 was available in terms of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.when the specified excisable goods were affixed with a brand name or trade name of a person who was not Indian, or the brand name or trade name of a person who was not a manufacturer.Sharp Business Machines (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore, 1995 (61) ECR 637 (Tribunal), the South Regional Bench at Madras while disposing of the Stay Applications had referred the matter to the Hon'ble President for constituting a Larger Bench for the purpose of deciding whether the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 was available to a manufacturer who was affixing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(101)ELT675TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order dated 24-12-1996 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by which he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 26,59,620/- on 850 Trollies, 4,710 Bins and 330 Pallets of iron and steel manufactured by the appellants during the period May, 1989 to March, 1992 through fabricators by supplying fabricated materials and imposed a penalty of an equal amount under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants supply raw material for the manufacture of the above mentioned three items which are in the nature of material handling equipment, to the following fabricators who fabricated the same in the appellants' premises : The appellants did not file any classification list or price list for these items nor did they maintain any statutory records for he same nor did they pay any Central Excise duty leviable thereon; hence a show cause notice date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)(5)LC1675Tri(Delhi)
1. The point for decision in this matter is whether certain Coolers installed by the Life Insurance Corpn. office at Raipur by obtaining the Exhaust Fans and Tully Pumps separately on payment of installation charges to a local company on job basis, would be liable to Central Excise duty.2. Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants stated that the appellants are a corporation which is a Public Sector Undertaking and their essential function is to undertake life insurance. Carrying on manufacturing business of any kind, is in no way their function. In the instant case, they had purchased exhaust fans and water lifting pumps from a firm in Kanpur and fitted them in a cabinet and installed them in Raipur office. Shri Gupta submitted that this process of installation of the exhaust fans and lifting pumps cannot make the appellants manufacturers of evaporative type of coolers. They have said that it is well-known that their function is life insurance and not manufacture of coolers. Accor...
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!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2007)(119)ECC53
1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner dated 27.1.05 rejecting its claim for remission of duty amount of Rs. 2,71,520/- on the ground that theft cannot said to be an accident and that dacoity was not an act of nature. The Commissioner preferred to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Golden Hills Estate v.CCE, Madras Bench judgment, as against the contrary decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bavaji and Motibhai v. Inspector , on the ground that former was a Division Bench judgment rendered in 1996.2. The appellant was engaged in manufacture of copper sheets and circles. By application dated 18.1.01, the appellant requested for remission of duty of Rs. 2,71,520/-, under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that the goods were taken away by the dacoits during the night between 30^th April, 1999 and 1^st May, 1999.3. Under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is inter alia, provided that there shall be levied and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(8)LC192Tri(Delhi)
1. As common questions of fact and law are involved in both these appeals, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order. These are revision applications filed before the Government of India which on transfer to this Tribunal are being treated as appeals.2. A brief narration of the facts leading to the appeals is necessary for purpose of understanding the controversy.3. The appellants carry on business of manufacture of compressors, water coolers, etc. There is no dispute regarding new compressors manufactured by them at their factory. The dispute now is with regard to the compressors received for repairs and cleared after repairs and/or re-making. A show cause notice was issued on 22-2-1977 alleging that during the period 1-4-1974 to 31-12-1976 the appellants received 29,494 compressors in their factory for repairs which were freshly manufactured and were cleared without payment of central excise duty amounting to about Rs. 3 crores. The appellants raised var...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1983)LC439DTri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed a Revision Application before the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act), as it existed before its amendment by the Finance Act, 1980 (No. 2 of 1980), which stands transferred under the provisions of Section 131-B ibid to the Appellate Tribunal to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The appellants imported a consignment 'Air Dryer MA 1000-180-207 E Electric Heater and Drive Motor for 400 V, 50 HZ'. The Bill of Entry was presented in the Import Department of the Bombay Custom House on 17-10-77 when the goods were assessed under Heading No. 84.59(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and duty levied at 60%+15% Basic Customs duty and Auxiliary duty respectively. The appellants paid the Customs duty as well as auxiliary duty as per this assessment on 21-11-1977.3. It appears that by notification No. 214-Customs dated 15-10-1977, duty under Sub-heading (1) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)(5)LC2088Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 21-8-84 of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This institution was established by the Government of India, Ministry of Industries with the assistance of the funds provided by the Government of Federal Republic of Germany. The main objectives of the Society are : (ii) To increase the efficiency of small-scale industries in the Northern Region in light engineering and allied fields by providing support in the areas of design and production of tools, jigs and fixtures, consultancy services, design and assistance in production planning ; (iii) Training of tool makers for press tools, jigs and fixtures, dies and moulds ; (iv) Conducting short-term and long-term course for the representatives of small scale industries of the area; (v) To develop after research small and medium size tools conforming to the needs of the small-scale industries ; and (vi)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(6)LC694Tri(Delhi)
1. An appeal, No. 548 of 1980-NRB, preferred by M/s. Video Electronics (P) Ltd., was dismissed by this Tribunal under its order dated 24.4.1984. The present application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is for referring to the High Court for questions, said to be questions of law, arising out of this order of the Tribunal. This application was received on 27.9.1985. Under Section 35G of the Act, the application for reference should be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal under Section 35C, time in proper cases being extendable by a further 30 days. Since the present application was filed on 27.9.1985, though the order in appeal had been received on 7.5.1984, an application for condonation of delay has been filed.2. The application for condonation of delay recites the facts on the basis of which condonation is sought for. It is stated that on receipt of the Tribunal's order on 7.5.1984, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!