Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal No.242(MPL)/CE/JPR-1/2005 dated 5.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of electric cables classifiable under sub-heading No. 8544.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed credit on inputs used in the manufacture of electric cables cleared on payment of duty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Technoweld Industries held that the process of drawing of wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture under the definition of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, show cause notice was issued proposing to recover Cenvat credit on inputs wire utilized for the process of electric cables. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order.3. The learned D.R. reiterates t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1986)(24)ELT604TriDel
1. When an aluminium foil has paid the duty under Item 27(c) of the Central Excise, tariff it cannot be required to pay that duty again.This is on account of the tariff item or rather sub-item itself under which aluminium foil is excised. The item runs :- "Foils (whether or not embossed, cut to shape, perforated, coated, printed or packed with paper of other reinforcing material) of a thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.15 mm".2. The item does not provide for duty on each of the varieties of aluminium foils viz. coated, printed, perforated backed etc. It provides that the duty under that head shall be charged on the foil "whether or not" it is embossed, coated, printed etc. etc. Thus no factory can claim its foil was coated or was printed, or was perforated, and so was not assessable under the head foil. The words embossed, cut to shape, perforated, coated, printed do not list items of goods to be assessed individually ; they do not sanction duty from one process to anot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(13)ECC1
1. This appeal has been dismissed for default by order No. 322/86-B1 dated 5-6-1986, under Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1982. The appellants have now applied for restoration of their appeal, submitting that there had been no wilful negligence by them when they did not appear on 5-6-1986. They say they are quite serious about the appeal but due to illness they were not able to engage an advocate in time and entrust the case to him to represent them. They also had difficulty in getting a train ticket, it being summer season.2. Considering all facts and circumstances, we restored the appeal to its original number and prolceeded to hear it.3. On behalf of M/s Srinivasa Metal Industries, Mr. Rao's main point was that the circles were cut from duty paid aluminium strips, and since circles and strips fell in the same sub-item, no duty would be leviable on the circles. Furthermore, the circles came into being only as intermediate forms...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(21)LC49Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras had filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. 56/84(M)dated 28th April, 1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on the 6th day of August, 1984 and was signed and verified by Sh K. Gopal Chari, Superintendent of Central Excise (Judicial) and was accompanied by an attested copy of authorisation in favour of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise (Judicial). The matter had come up for hearing before the Tribunal on merits at various occasions starting from 25th March, 1985, 13th June,1985,16th September, 1985, 10th December, 1985, 2nd May, 1986, 26th June, 1986, 27th June, 1986, 18th November, 1986, 12th December, 1986 and 8th April, 1987. On all these dates of hearing, the matter could not finally be disposed of for one or the other reason. The last matter had come up on 16th June,1987 when it was observed that the appeal was signed by the Superintendent of C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1991)LC630Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have, in this case, sought for setting aside the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 16/87 (M) A. No. 212/86 (M), dated 30-1-1987 confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector, Madras. The Assistant Collector in the Order-in-Original has approved classification of item as 'Spindle HVI Oil' from 1982 cleared to L. 6 holder, under Chapter X procedure for use in the manufacturing of agricultural spray oil, under Item 11A(3)(b) at the rate of Rs. 1149.50 per M.T. with appropriate special excise duty as per the Notification No. 44/78, dated 1-3-1978 as amended and from 1-3-1986, the Assistant Collector has also approved the classification of the item at the rate of Rs. 1207/-per M.T. as per the Notification No. 75/84, dated 1-3-1984 as amended by Notification No. 120/86, dated 1-3-1986. Thereby, he has also demanded the differential duty due from the appellants for clearance of spindle HVI oil used in the manufacture of agri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT257TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by two separate orders one passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi and the other passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Hyderabad. In both the appeals, similar issue is for our consideration.Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In the appeal decided by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), New Delhi the goods were described by the importers in the B/E as "Optional Time Domain Reflectometers". In another appeal in which the impugned order is by Collector, Customs (Appeals), Hyderabad, the goods were described as "Automatic Test Equipment - Single Mode Reflectometer". On examination, the goods were found to be 'optical time domain reflectometer'.3. There is no dispute about classification. The respondents have claimed the benefit of Notification No. 96/91-Cus., dated 25-7-91 under serial No. 53 of the Table annexed to that notification which covers 'automatic te...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)(5)LC2118Tri(Delhi)
1. These four appeals are directed against two orders of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. Three of the appeals, relating to the first three appellants, arise out of the Additional Collector's Order No. 39/83, dated 30-11-83. The appeal of M/s. Soundtrek arises out of the Additional Collector's Order No. 38/83, dated 24-11-83.Since the facts and charges in all the four cases are similar and all four appellants were respresented by the same learned consultant, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The charge basically was that the appellants were engaged in the recording of magnetic cassette tapes or spool magnetic tapes and thereby manufacturing goods falling under Item 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule without obtaining Central Excise licences and without filing classification lists and price lists or paying duty. They were accordingly called upon to show cause why penalties should not be imposed upon them under Rules 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)LC280Tri(Delhi)
1. In the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) examined this case and observed the view of the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Haryana Plywood v. CCE, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 224 about the theory of undue enrichment is not to be applied to pending claims as the same is in a Customs case and moreover the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jain Spinners, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) is different from that. Even though refund was applied in Sept. '91, this will attract the undue enrichment principle in view of the Supreme Court judgment and the amount of Rs. 64,450/- will not be admissible to the appellants. Similarly endorsement of duty paid under protest on PLA will not be of any help and the amount of Rs. 51,025.00 also does not be entitled to be refunded. The appellant is not entitled to any interest as there was no provision at that time for grant of interest in CESA, 1944 other claims remain mis-substantiated by the appellants.Appeal rejected accordingly.2. Being a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(18)LC649Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The point for decision in the appeal is the levy of cess on the jute yarn captively consumed in the appellant's factory for the manufacture of other jute products, namely, Hessian, Sacking, etc.These products, manufactured out of jute yarn paid cess under the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules 1976 read with Section 9 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.2. The plea of the appellants is that the yarn so consumed was an intermediate product and inasmuch as the finished product in which these were used discharged the excess liability, no cess could be demanded in respect of yarn captively consumed. The demands were raised by the issue of 12 show cause notices and confirmed by a single order passed by the original adjudicating authority. The findings of the original adjudicating authority, while confirming the demands are as under: "The assessee again pleaded that if cess is charged on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)(58)ELT76TriDel
1. In both these appeals, common issue of facts and law is involved.Hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. This appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 17-12-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the grant of benefit of exemption from payment of duty as per Notification No. 179/85-C.E., dated 1-8-1985 as amended by Notification No. 78/86-CE.The appellants Neyveli Lignite Corporation, a Government of India Enterprise, is producing lignite as well as Agglomerated Lignite which falls under sub-heading 2702.00 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 179/85 as amended by Notification No. 78/86 which exempts goods falling under sub-heading 2702.00.3. A show cause notice dated 27-2-1987 was issued by Superintendent of Central Excise, Virudhachalam under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 demanding a duty of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!