Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)(22)ELT844TriDel
1. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limited is a public company limited by shares and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and dealing in Ayurvedic medicines/drugs and other allied products. Besides manufacturing Ayurvedic drugs/medicines, they also manufacture Surmas like Himalaya Surma, Moti Surma etc. and also Dant Manjans like Dant Manjan Lal, Dant Manjan Black, Dant Manjan White.2. Prior to March 1, 1975 'Dant Manjan Lal' manufactured by the appellant was considered to be a patent or proprietary medicine falling under Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but considered as not excisable to duty by virtue of the express exclusion in the description of the Tariff Item itself in favour of "medicines" which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani Sidha or Homoeopathic.3. Immediately after March 1, 1975, when a residuary item being Item No. 68 came to be introduced into the Central Excise Tariff Schedule for "All other goods, not elsewhere ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(83)ECC630
1. This matter has been referred to the Larger Bench in terms of majority order reading as under: 65. In terms of majority order, all the above noted appeals are referred to Hon'ble President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide various issues involved in these group of appeals as noted by Member (Technical), Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order which has been concurred to by Shri Jeet Ram Kait, Member (Technical). The Larger Bench shall also consider the final order which is required to be passed in respect of each of the appellants noted above.2. In the majority order there is a request for deciding various issues involved in the appeals as noted by Member (Technical) Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order.3. Shri Lajja Ram in his differing order which is in para 24 at a page 108 is reproduced as under: 24. The main issue for consideration and decision in these group of appeals relating to alleged violations of the conditions as laid down in the Customs Exemption Notification N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(50)ELT381TriDel
1. This is Revenue's appeal against the impugned order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay dated 18-12-1985 by which he set aside the order-in-original dated 4-1-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.2. The respondents M/s. Hico Products Ltd. are manufacturers of the products (1) Dimethicon - 20 (2) Dimethicon - 350 (3) Dimethicon - 2000 (4) Dimethicon -1000 and (5) Simethicon and (6) Dimethicon - 100. They were filing classification list for products from Sr. No. 1 to 5 under Tariff Item 68 of CET w.e.f. 10-8-19.82 for the product against Sr. No.6, they were filing classification list under Tariff Item 68 w.e.f.24-1-1983. On certain occasions, they have filed classification in respect of the above products under Tariff Item 15-A on insistence by the Central Excise officers and have paid duty under protest, claiming that these products are classifiable under Tariff Item 68.3. The Department, therefore, drew samples of the above produ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited filed Bill of Entry No. 105274 dated 06.11.1992 for import of one Toshiba make TCT 300S Whole Body CT Scanning machine. It was cleared on 12.11.1992 without payment of duty on the strength of customs duty exemption certificate issued by the Directorate General of Health Services under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988. Show cause notice dated 24.5.1997 was issued to M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited that they were required to submit the installation certificate from Directorate General of Health Services within a reasonable period and no such certificate was produced by them demanding duty of Rs. 79,11,176/-. This show cause notice is still said to pending for decision.2. To check the fulfillment of other conditions prescribed under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988, the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Haryana conducted an audit of this Hospital on 04.10.1996 and submitted their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC703Tri(Delhi)
1. The only issue involved in the instant case is whether "Ad-vitamin Massage Oil Forte" manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under sub-heading 3003.19 of GET, 1985 as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading 3304.00 as held by the authorities below.2. The facts leading to the said controversy lie in a very narrow compass that is to say the appellants M/s. Sunny Industries (P) Ltd. files their classification list No. 2/86, dated 3-3-1986 claiming classification of their said product, namely, Ad-vitamin Massage Oil Forte under sub-heading 3003.19 of GET, 1985 as patent or proprietary medicine which was modified during approval by the Assistant Collector to sub-heading 3304.00 as preparation of skin on the ground that use of medicinal ingredients in the subject goods does not take it away from the purview of the above Tariff Heading.3. The said question of classification of the subject product, namely, Ad-vitamin Massage Oil Forte stands already decided by this Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)LC571Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant, importer, is aggrieved with the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Importer had imported "Cat Scanner Equipment" and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dt.1-3-1988. The Bill of Entry disclosed the value of the said item at Rs. 1,40,22,787.00 CIF. Alongwith the Bill of Entry, the importers had attached the following documents : (i) Invoice No. HH-001/90 dt. 24-3-1990 of M/s. Hightech Health Equipment Co., Hongkong. (ii) Insurance Certificate No. 15080322 (1064) dt. 30-3-1990 indicating the reference No. SDL/HH/29/80 relating to the goods imported. (v) Order confirmation No. CH. 001/90 dt. 14-3-1990 by M/s. High Tech Health Equipments Co., Hongkong. (vi) Packing list of M/s. High Tech Health Equipment Co., Hongkong relating to invoice No. NH-001/90 dt. 24-3-1990 indicating importer's reference number as SDL/HH/29/30. (vii) NMIC No. I/CC/5/88/397 dt. 25-5-1988 endorsed on application No. NMIC/1-88 dt. 15-4-1988 for CT-SE 600 Syner view Scann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1991)LC204Tri(Delhi)
1. This application for Rectification of Mistake apparent from record in Order No. 110/91-A, dated 8-2-1991 has been filed under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the grounds that the Tribunal had not traversed the following arguments/pleas :- "(a) Plea against loading of invoice in absence of evidence merely on the basis of surmises. (b) Plea against enhancement of invoice value there being no whisper of allegation of illegal remittance of Foreign Exchange, over and above the L.C. value. (c) Plea against not giving the same standard of credence to the foreign suppliers' two certificates dated 17-3-1975 and 28-8-1981 by the learned Collector (Appeal) thereby prejudicing the appellants' case. (d) Plea that the appellants having no truck with the manufacturers, it was not possible for them to submit the manufacturers invoice. (e) Mistakenly held that "39.5% share holding of the U.K. Company in the equity capital of appellants shows mutual interest in the business of each other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(16)ECC83
1. By this application the Collector of Customs has pleaded for condonation of delay for filing the appeal beyond the period of three months as stipulated under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay bearing No. S-49/598/8 Cl. dated 31-3-1984 is stated to have been received as per C.A. 3 Form by the Collector on 28-4-1984.The appeal in the Tribunal against this order of Collector (Appeals) has been received in the Registry on 12-11-1984. The respondents by an affidavit filed on the 8th May, 1987 and received in the Registry on 23rd June 1987, among other things, have stated that there was a delay of 113 days in filing the appeal over that prescribed under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 19**. In fact, the appeal has been filed under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act. However, on point regarding the delay, the respondents plea is that it has been filed beyond time by 113 days. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC480
1. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the availability of benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 to the C.T. Scan Machine imported by M/s. C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. 2 Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported one Computerised Axial Tomography Scanner and a spare C.T.X-Ray Tube and availed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. under Bill of Entry dated 24-7-91; that a show cause notice dated 17-9-98 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs to show cause as to why goods imported by them should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has confiscated the impugned goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakh and appropriate duty and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakh on the Appellants On the ground that they have not fulfilled the conditions specified in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT695TriDel
1. The issue involved in these three appeals, arising out of a Common Order No. 9/99, dated 29-10-99 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, is whether the products manufactured by M/s. Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan are Ayurvedic Medicaments or preparations for use on the hair' falling under Heading 33.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Learned Advocate, submitted that M/s.Meghdoot Gramodyog Sewa Sansthan, a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860, manufacture Ayurvedic drugs in its factory which is registered with U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board; that they manufacture about 20 Ayurvedic drugs out of which the present appeals are concerned with the classification of the following products : 2.2 He mentioned that Appellants manufacture these products on the strength of the Ayurvedic drug licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940; that the ingredients based on which the products are manufactured are duly me...
Tag this Judgment!