Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (1987)(13)LC717Tri(Kol.)kata
1. These appeals relate to common issues. These were, therefore, taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No.C-152/84-Cal., vide Sr.in was filed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta as per order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi in Order in 1/R-Cus/Gr. dated 23.7.1984 under Section 129-D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the order dated 17.11.1983 passed by the said Collector. The other appeals, vide Serial Nos.2 to 10, were filed by the importers concerned against the respective order-in- original passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. (a) M/s Mansingka Brothers, respondent in , entered into a contract No. Oil/002/D/83 dated 15.3.1983 with M/s Kuok (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore for importing 1500 M/Tons of Stearin Fatty Acid. The goods were to be shipped in part consignments. The first consignment of 200.17 M/Tons of the goods arrived at Calcutta Port on 13.9.1983 per "SS Johneverett". The respondent fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT578Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 6-3-1996 raising demand of duty of Rs. 11,62,500.00 in respect of the goods cleared by them during the period from 30-8-1993 to 28-1-1994 on the alleged ground that the same were not Material Handling Equipments classifiable under sub-heading 8428.00, but the same were parts of the Material Handling Equipments properly classifiable under heading 8431.00 attracting higher rate of duty. The notice proposed invocation of longer period of limitation and imposition of personal penalty upon the appellants.2. Upon adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta confirmed the demand of duty as proposed in the show cause notice and also imposed the personal penalty of an equivalent amount under the provisions of Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Interest @24% was also confirmed on the amount outstanding under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Act. The said Order of the Commissioner is impugned before us.4. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC594Tri(Kol.)kata
1. Collector of Customs, Calcutta has filed two applications in terms of the provisions of Section 129D(4) of Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as appeals. The said applications were presented in the Registry on 24-11-1983. Since a common issue is involved in both the applications, these are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The Bench had pointed out to the Ld. S.D.R. that the applications, which are being treated as appeals, have not been filed properly. In the applications in Form C.A. 5, Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta has been shown as appellant whereas the same should have been the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. To this query Shri M.C. Thakur, Ld.S.D.R. has made a request that necessary permission for rectifying the defect may be granted. The learned advocates for both the respondents have no objection for granting opportunity to the appellant for rectifying the defect.3. After hearing both the sides, necessary permission for the rectification of the defect was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (1988)(34)ELT202Tri(Kol.)kata
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, dated 14-8-1986.3. On these dates we heard the submissions of the parties on the question of jurisdiction.4. Both the sides submitted their respective versions of the case but the submissions were mainly confined to the question as to whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Calcutta Customs had the jurisdiction to take action under the law.5. Both the sides also submitted their written briefs and referred to the action of Paradwip Customs as well as Calcutta Customs and cited various provisions of relevant Acts and case laws in support of their respective contentions.The learned Counsels for the appellant submitted that Mrs. Ramnarain Biswanath, as Letter of Authority holder, imported 1514.790 metric tonnes of Seconed Grade G.P. Sheets/Coils amounting to Rs. 26,79,475.25 p. These goods were shipped from Japan on 31st January, 1985. The Appellant paid the full C. & F. value o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2006)(194)ELT424Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The Short issue concerned in this order is whether an advocate who has not filed his Vakalatnama can appeal before the Bench and argue the case of the appellant. The facts in this case are as follows:- 1.1 In these cases, the appellant company has filed the appeals with a Vakalatnama filed in the name of Shri B.N. Pal, Learned Advocate. 1.2 When the case came up today, Shri R.K. Chowdhury, learned Advocate along with Shri B.N.Pal appeared. Shri R.K. Chowdhury wants to argue the case for the appellants. It has been pointed out that no Vakalatnama has been filed in these cases in the name of Shri R.K. Chowdhury and as such, he cannot appear and argued the cases on behalf of the appellant company. The Bench wanted to give opportunity to boths ides on this issue before taking a decision in the matters.2. Heard Shri R.K. Chowdhury, learned Advocate. He submits that in these cases, a Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri B.N. Pal, learned Advocate who is present here and he is not arguing t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2004)(92)ECC451
1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, issue involved is whether the goods fabricated by M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. are excigible to Central Excise duty.2.1 Shri H.K. Chaturvedi, ld. Jt. C.D.R., submitted that M/s. Raunaq International Ltd., respondents were engaged in the manufacture of steel pipes having internal and external cross-section, the external diameter of which exceeded 406.4 mm at the premises of M/s. Thermal Power Station in Orissa; that they were clearing the impugned pipes to the erection site near the turbo generator hall and demineralisation plant without following any Central Excise procedure and without payment of duty; that the Central Excise Officers detained 39.743 MTs of pipe lying with the respondents on 18-2-1993; that the Assistant Collector, under Order-in-Original No. 4/93, dated 19-7-93 had held the pipes as excisable and classified the same under sub-heading 7305.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the matter was remanded by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2003)(154)ELT288Tri(Kol.)kata
1. M/s. SWIL Limited have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the Adjudication Order No. 2/2001, dated 10-2-2001 under which the Commissioner has demanded Additional Excise duty and has imposed penalty treating the product classifiable under Heading 54.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Dr. Shri R.N. Bajoria, Senior learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture Phosphor Bronze Wire Cloth, Stainless Steel Wire Cloth and Synthetic Wire Cloth for use in Foundrinier paper making machine falling under Heading 59.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that in September, 1992 a dispute was raised by the Department that in the process of manufacture of "Dandy Covers", etc., fabrics falling under Heading 54.09 of the Tariff was being manufactured and captively consumed which had culminated in the impugned Order demanding duty and penalty. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Shri Samir Sarangi, General Manager works, had given proces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2002)(149)ELT441Tri(Kol.)kata
1. Based on an information the Officers went to the free Trade Zone Office and found that a unit of the Free Trade Zone (herein after referred to FEPZ) viz Hilton Industrial and Engineering Co. Ltd. (herein after referred to HIECL) had filed of shipping Bills for export of 'CAST ALLOY PERMANENT MAGNET IN UNMAGNETIZED CONDITION" (herein after referred to CADM) and had procured certificate of test from M/s.Metallurgica, Kolkata. The goods were lying on 5.12.2000 at FEPZ awaiting export. Enquiries were made and a show cause notice dated 26.4.01 was issued as it appeared: (i) Goods covered under 7 (seven) shipping bills as aforesaid were attempted to be exported by M/s. HIECL in violation of prohibitions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Rules 11 and 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and Section 67 of the FERA. 1973 and Rules 5, 6 & 7 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (1985)(19)ELT156Tri(Kol.)kata
1. Harshadray N. Doshi, 51, Ezra Street, Calcutta-700001, shipping and clearing agentshad filed a revision petition to the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue), New Delhi, being aggrieved from Order No. 261A of 1979 dated the 30th November, 1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. After coming into the existence of the Tribunal the said revision petition has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 and is being disposed of as an appeal. The appeal was posted for hearing on the 12th day of July, 1984.2. Shri A.K. Chatterjee, the learned J.D.R. had raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition is not signed properly as the appellant has not produced any power of attorney on behalf of the importers. The learned J.D.R. had pleaded that the importers are M/s.Utkal Pesticides & Chemicals, Orissa, In the absence of any power of attorney the clearing agents could not sign. The same sho...
Tag this Judgment!