Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT416Tri(Chennai)
1. this appeal is directed against the order of the collector of central excise (appeals), trichy dated 22-3-1991, confirming the order of the assistant collector of central excise, erode dated nil and disallowing the credit taken and utilised by the appellant for the period 11-10-1989 to 2-11-1989.2. mrs. komala chowdhary, the learned consultant for the appellant, submitted that the issue arises out of me money credit scheme available under rule 57k of the central excises and salt act, 1944 and the appellants are manufacturers of vanaspathi and have been availing the money credit scheme in terms of rule 57k aforesaid read with notification 27/87, dated 1-3-1987 and notification 45/89, dated 11-10-1989, and the appellants had submitted a declaration in terms of rule 57-o for availing the credit in terms of notification 27/87 aforesaid and this notification was subsequently withdrawn by notification 39/[89], dated 25th august, 1989 and instead notification 45/89, dated 11-10-1989 came to be issued. proceedings were instituted against the appellants by issue of show cause notice dated 26-2-1990 on the ground that the credit in a sum of rs. 7,19,028.50 taken by the appellants under the aforesaid money credit scheme was not permissible for the period 11-10-1989 to 27-11-1989 as the appellants had not filed the necessary declaration with the assistant collector of central excist in terms of the said notification for the period in question indicating inter alia the description of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1999)(84)LC462Tri(Chennai)
..... 27 parcels were cleared by himself and his cousin jaimuni rao with less amount of duty and with the help of assistant collector (pad); that he met the inspector in pad office whom he knew was a strict man; that the inspector would not do anything on his own unless told by asst. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1990)(30)LC221Tri(Chennai)
1. this appeal is directed against the order of the collector of central excise (appeals), madras, dated 30-6-88 confirming the order of the assistant collector of central excise, madras, dated nil of 1988 directing the appellants to expunge the credit taken for one consignment of the input viz. cotton seed oil in terms of central excise notification 27/87 dated 1-3-87 read with rules 57k and 57-o of the central excise rules, 1944.2. shri subramaniam, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that cotton seed oil is one of the inputs specified in notification 27/87 cited supra for taking credit on condition that a declaration should have been filed in regard to the same before the proper authority in terms of rule 57-o of the central excise rules, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the 'rules'. the learned counsel urged that it is not disputed that at the time when the appellants took credit in respect of the cotton seed oil in question the appellants had not filed the declaration in terms of the rules. the appellant had expunged the credit and had filed a declaration on 23-12-87 and, therefore, in terms of rule 57-o of the rules the appellants would be entitled to take credit in respect of cotton seed oil in question though the same had been utilised earlier in finished product and end product cleared on payment of duty. the learned counsel submitted that the scope of rule 57-o should be construed in favour of the appellants in the context of the facts of this case .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1997)LC119Tri(Chennai)
1. the appeal c/v-224/97 was posted for final hearing on 8-5-1997 and the learned consultant for the appellants shri kumaraswamy at that time pointed out that exactly similar issue is involved in another appeal.in that stay petition filed has been posted for hearing on 30-5-1997.he has pleaded that both the appeals are similar and the other appeal may also be heard with this appeal dispensing with the pre-deposit of the amount. in the appeal c/v-224/97, he pleaded that the tribunal has granted dispensation of the penalty taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.2. with the consent of the dr, shri arulswamy, the prayer of the learned consultant was allowed and the other appeal no.c/v-255/97 was also linked with the appeal c/v-224/97. the pre-deposit of the penalty as levied in that appeal for the reasons for which we have granted stay in appeal c/v-224/97, is allowed and both the appeals are taken up together for disposal.3. the machines imported in both these cases are the same i.e. second hand konica nice print system model 612 eqa comprising printer processor of model no. cl pp 1711 eqa and film processor of model no.cl kp 50 eqa together with standard accessories. these second hand machines were imported from a trader in singapore and which was covered by a chartered engineer's certificate and also an invoice form the trader which shows the year of manufacture as 1989 and the value of the machines as new at singapore $ 23,500 and in the other case .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2002)(80)ECC114
1. both these appeals arise out of a common order in appeal no. 832/99 dated 30.12.99 passed by the commissioner (appeals), chennai. since both these appeals raise a common question of law and facts and hence they are taken up together for disposal. the commissioner (appeals) by the impugned order held that the transaction value of one second hand (used machine) viz. mortizu mini lab model 1702 comprising of printer processor and film processor 4100 with standard accessories was not acceptable in terms of commercial invoice showing the price of singapore dollar (s$) 25,000 which was supplied by m/s rezeki singapore pvt. ltd. appellants had also filed chartered engineers certificate dated 24.10.98 which inter alia certified that: (3) the estimated value of equivalent new machinery is s$ 50,000 for export.they also declared that re-conditioning charges are s$ 565 which is to be added to the invoice value as per suppliers letter dated 5.2.99.2. the department made investigations and communicated with the representative of the suppliers in india and confirmed the manufacturing price from the said supplier of the machinery moritsu mini lab model with regard to a particular model 1702u. on the basis of this price, proceedings were initiated to enhance the assessable value.it was submitted by the appellants that this model was not introduced in indian market as the software was suitable to european countries only and the price at which the machines was sold or offered for sale was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2005)(191)ELT163Tri(Chennai)
1. the issue raised in these appeals are common i.e., the eligibility of certain items for exemption under notification no. 164/87-ce dated 10.6.1987. the items in question are: there is no dispute that each of these items has been manufactured according to specific drawings for use as parts of "t-72 main battle tanks". originally, these items were cleared as exempt under the notification against c.t.2 certificates issued by the central excise officer in-charge of avadi factory of the ordinance board, where the "t-72 main battle tank" is manufactured. however, subsequently the exemptions were denied on the basis that these items did not fall for classification under tariff entries specified in the exemption notification. the appellant-assessee claims classification of these items under tariff heading no. 87.10, which reads as under: tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles motorised, whether or not fitted with weapons, and parts of such vehicles.2. the contention of the id. counsel for the appellant's is that, it is well settled that items for sole use in a particular machine should be classified as parts of that machine, while items of general use should be classified under their respective tariff. the id. counsel in this context has taken us to the decision of the apex court in the case of g.s. auto international ltd. v. collector of central excise chandigarh and elgi equipments v. collector of central excise 2002 (51) r.l.t. 382 : 2002 (104) ecr 312 (sc). the counsel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2008)12STJ124CESTAT(Chennai)
1. having heard both sides and after perusal of the records, it is clear that the respondents in this case had shifted to a new address (no. 2, ist main road, g.k. industrial estate, chennai-600 116. from the records it is also clear that the intimation letters sent to them on two occasions have returned by the postal authority with the remarks "left". ld. jdr relies upon the hon'ble high court's judgment in commissioner of customs, kolkata v. sunil ghosh in which the hon'ble high court had held that review and rectification cannot be treated at par and that section 129b in respect of customs act, 1962 does not empower the appellate tribunal to undertake the review.2. on the other hand, ld. consultant for the respondents relied upon the hon'ble supreme court's judgment in the case of j.k. synthetics ltd. v. cce appeal is restorable when there was sufficient cause for absence of the party and that to meets the ends of justice required when a party is unable to appear for no fault of its own.3. it is found that in this matter the respondents had shifted their premises and hence the correspondence addressed to them had to come back the tribunal. as no proper service was made, i am of the view of that sufficient cause has been shown by the respondents for its absence during the proceedings which was held on 20.1.2006. in view of the fact that the respondents who are also applicants of the rom have established that the communication about the proceedings have not reached them, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1997)(71)LC459Tri(Chennai)
1. the issue in these appeals relates to benefit of notfn. 95/79 dated 1.3.1979 and its successor notfn. 95/83. under the notifications in question, benefit of credit of duty on the raw materials i.e. synthetic rubber (tariff entry 16aa), carbon black (tariff entry 64), rubber processing chemicals (tariff entry 65) is available in case the same are used in the manufacture of tyres falling under tariff heading 16.the lower authorities had denied the benefit of duty credit in terms of these notifications for the reasons that these items in question were first received in one factory of the appellants and same had been used to produce masticated rubber which is turn was removed from the factory and brought to the appellants factory at madras for use in the manufacture of tyres cleared under tariff heading 16. the facts leading to the demand as set out in the show cause notice issued by the order of the original authority dated 26.7.1986 are reproduced below: m/s. mrf ltd., madras have been receiving into their factory a commodity called masticated rubber, which has been manufactured in their factory at kottayam, for the further manufacture of tyres. this masticated rubber received by m/s. mrf ltd., madras from m/s. mrf ltd., kottayam is an excisable product and has been classified as a rubber product falling under t.i. 16a(2). in the manufacture of masticated rubber at kottayam, the three inputs synthetic rubber, carbon black and rubber processing chemicals are also used. after .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1996)(84)ELT449Tri(Chennai)
1. this appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the collector of central excise (appeals), hyderabad. the short point that falls for consideration in the appeal is whether in the absence of a fresh declaration under rule 57-o of the central excise rules, 1944 required to be filed by the respondents, the benefit under notification 45/89, dated 11-10-1989 could be given based on the declaration earlier filed when notification 27/87, dated 1-3-1987 was in vogue and which came to be rescinded. the lower appellate authority's interpretation in this regard is as under: "a perusal of rule 57-o would indicate that a manufacturer intending to take credit is required to file a declaration with the asstt. collector of central excise giving the description of the final products manufactured in his factory and the inputs intended to be used in each of the said final products and such other information as the asstt. collector may require and the rule further stipulates that such a manufacturer after having filed the said declaration, may after obtaining the acknowledgment of the declaration filed, take credit on the inputs. a perusal of notification no. 45/89, dated 11-10-1989 indicates that there was no requirement for a manufacturer to file a fresh declaration. in fact a reading of notification no. 27/87-c.e., dated 1-3-1987 also indicates that there was no provision in the notification itself requiring a manufacturer to file a declaration. in fact the requirement of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1999)(112)ELT161Tri(Chennai)
1. the issue in the appeal relates to utilisation of the modvat credit taken in respect of caustic soda lye which was used as an input in the manufacturing stream of viscose staple fibre (vsf). the brief facts of the case as set out in the findings portion of the ld. lower authority's in para 9 are reproduced as under:- "9. m/s. gil are manufacturers of mainly vsf falling under chapter 55 and sodium sulphate falling under chapter 28 and sodium sulphate is their by-product which emerges during the course of manufacture of vsf. the common inputs used in the manufacture of these products are caustic soda lye and sulphuric acid. they procure caustic soda lye from other units and avail credit on the same, whereas sulphuric acid is manufactured by them and captively utilised claiming exemption from duty under notification no. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 and/or 67/95, dated 16-3-1995. they started availing the modvat credit of duty paid on c.s. lye used in the manufacture of sodium sulphate right from april, 1986. since their main product vsf was not specified as a final product under notification no. 177/86, they were apportioning the modvat credit of duty paid on c.s. lye and were taking credit in their rg 23a, part-ii only to the extent of quantity actually used in the manufacture of sodium sulphate based on the consumption ratio of c.s. lye for the production of one m.t. of sodium sulphate which is 563 kgs. pmt of sodium sulphate given as per their letter no. cx-86-87: 355, dated .....
Tag this Judgment!