Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1996)(83)ELT115Tri(Chennai)
1. This Reference Application is against the order of the Tribunal dated 16-12-1992. Shri Upadhyaya, the learned Consultant submitted that the Tribunal has found that the use of the crane is not directly connected with the manufacture and therefore, the value of the same could not be included in the value of the plant and machinery for considering the appellants' eligibility to the benefit of Small Scale Notification and a question of law would arise in this regard.3. We are afraid, we cannot acceed to the plea because the ruling of the-Supreme Court referred to in the impugned order in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works and Ors., reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (SC) : 1991 (4) Supreme Court Cases 473 will have a bearing on this. Apart from that we find that without the crane, any of the activity carried out by the appellants for the manufacture admittedly cannot take place. Therefore, the value of the crane will have to be included in the value...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(83)ELT642TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal by the Collector of Customs, Bombay is whether the machinery imported by the respondent M/s. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. is to be classified under Heading 84.17(1) of the Customs Tariff, as claimed by the respondent and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) or as air conditioning equipment under Heading 84.15.2. Shri K.K. Jha, SDR argued that it was evident from the technical literature that the goods function on the principle of refrigeration with the machinery performing functions covering the complete refrigeration cycle. The catalogue and technical literature show that the compressed air enters the heat exchanger in which heat is removed by the refrigeration system. The elements of the refrigeration system such as compressor, condenser and cooling tool are all present. That in this process the air also dehumidified did not detract from the fact that primary function of the machine was to lower the temperature of the treate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT659TriDel
1. These are 3 stay petitions numbered respectively C/Stay/820-821/95-A corresponding to Appeals C/477-478/95-A filed by M/s. Maharashtra Marble Company and C/Stay/ 884/95-A corresponding to C/476/95-A filed by M/s. NITCO Marbles and Granites. It was explained by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nitin Kantawala that the first mentioned applications had effected two imports one at Bombay Port and the other at Nhavasheva and the second mentioned applicants M/s. NITCO Marbles and Granites had imported their goods at the Nhavasheva port.He further explained that the goods involved in all these imports were the same. The adjudication by the concerned Collectors proceeded on the same basis and the findings followed the same pattern. The defence taken by the respective parties before the concerned Collectors was of a common pattern. He stated that he would be submitting common arguments in respect of the 3 stay petitions. He made a further plea that as the goods are remaining de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC517Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against order dated 8-12-1992 passed by the Collector Central Excise (Appeals) Bangalore. The appellants filed Bill of Entry No. 003838, dated 19-2-1991 for the clearance of one Emco Compact 5-CNC Computer Numerically Controlled Universal Machine Tool and one CNC Milling Machine with Electrical Equipment along with accessories totally valued at Rs. 5,91,298/-. The goods were classified under sub-heading 8459.31 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. The importers claimed the clearance of the imported CNC-5 Universal Machine valued at Rs. 2,16,561 and CNC Milling Machine with electrical equipment valued at Rs. 3,14,782 along with accessories for the machines valued at Rs. 1,57,852 in terms of Notification No. 229/88, dated 1-8-1988 against the Pass Book issued to them for the import of Scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipments. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 24-8-1992 denied the exemption under Notification 229/88 in respect of the good...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT465TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original No. 5/85 (Central Excise), dated 4-10-1985 of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.2. The appellants have Cement factory at Udaipur and also limestone quarries located about 5 kms. away from their factory, from where limestones are brought as raw materials for the manufacture of cement.A ropeway was installed in 1984 to bring the limestones mechanically to the factory. The appellants had entered into a contract with M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd., Calcutta for construction including design, manufacture, supply, transportation, civil engineering, erection, testing and commissioning of the said ropeway. M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd. had brought various component parts into the factory of the appellants and assembled/fabricated certain goods in the factory. These goods were meant for installation at site for construction of ropeway. It was alleged that the appellants brought constructed ropeway through their contractor M/s. Usha Brecko Ltd. as well as s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1996)56ITD302(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of by.CIT(A), Range-XVI, Calcutta dated 15-1-1991.2. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty under Section 273(2)(c) of the Act. For the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee has filed an estimate on 13-9-1982 estimating the total income at Rs. 30, 000. A revised estimate was filed on 11-3-1983 estimating the income at Rs. 40, 000. However, the income returned was Rs. 73, 940 which was accepted by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) subject to rectification under Section 155 adopting correct share income from the firms. Thus, the returned income and the assessed income was higher than the income shown in the estimate. In fact, the assessee has received a notice for payment of advance-tax amounting to Rs. 31, 870 on total income of Rs. 81, 400. However, in response to the same, the assessee has filed a lower estimate by estimating the income at Rs. 30, 000...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)56ITD440(Delhi)
1. The cancellation by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of a penalty of Rs. 6,398 imposed on the assessee by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271 (1)(c) is in challenge in this appeal filed by the Revenue.2. The original assessment in this case was completed on 4-10-1982 on a total income of Rs. 7,250. Search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were conducted on 4-2-1984 at the business/ residential premises of the assessee when duplicate cash books for various years along with other "incriminating documents" were found and seized. An examination of these documents/books revealed that the entries made therein did not tally with the original books of account maintained by the assessee for the purposes of his Income-tax assessments. However, after the aforesaid search and seizure operations the assessee submitted a return of income on 26-5-1984 declaring an income of Rs. 30,000. Inasmuch as the aforesaid return had been filed after the completion of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. This matter has come up before me as a result of Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions dated 30-3-1995 in Civil Appeal No. 2532 (NM) of 1992 reported in [1995 (77) E.L.T. 49 (SC)].2. The appellants, who are a Central Excise licensee, filed a classification list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 effective from 1-4-1983. In this classification list, they declared as items manufactured by them, laboratory and fine chemicals (list of items as per Annexure A) under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The present case does not relate to these manufactured items. The appellants also undertake repacking of bought out chemicals from bulk back to small retail packs. The appellants call this activity of repacking as direct pack. There is also no dispute in the present case as far as this activity of the appellants is concerned. Apart from the above, the appellants also undertake purification of bought out chemicals by way of d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(81)ELT236TriDel
1. The captioned ROM application is directed against the Tribunal's Final Order No. E/22/95-B1, dated 12-1-1995.2. Arguing the ROM application, Shri Harbans Singh, the learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that it was urged before the Tribunal that the appellants had submitted duty paying documents but the learned Collector did not take them into account and did not consider their plea effectively. The learned Counsel also argued that it was stressed that the whole demand was time-barred and the demand was not maintainable but no order has been passed on this issue. The learned Counsel therefore, prayed that the order of the Tribunal may be recalled and modified or direction may be given to whom it has been remanded for looking into these points. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the above issues were argued at length at the time of hearing of the appeal but no decision was given; that as the case has been remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the maintainability ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC407Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are against the order dated 1-12-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines falling under Tariff Item 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They filed a Classification List No. 20/3/84 dated 23-7-1984 claiming full exemption of duty on their product 'Op-thomycetin Eye Drops' in terms of Notification No. 106/80-CE., dated 19-06-1980 which amended the Notification 116/69-C.E., dated 3-5-1969 under which patent and proprietary medicines falling under Tariff Item 14E and containing Chloramphenicol and its esters for oral and parenteral use were exempted from whole of the duty leviable thereon. Since the medicine in question was sold describing it as "for external use", the Assistant Collector Central Excise passed an order holding that the medicine 'Opthomycetin Eye Drops' was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 116/69-...
Tag this Judgment!