Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(75)LC342Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 31.5.1994.2. Learned Departmental Representative stated that the respondents had filed 9 refund claims on the ground that Propylene Glycol is a 'Bulk Drug' and as per notification No. 77/86 and 234/86, the duty is chargeable 60% + 40% + CVD Nil. However, their contention was not accepted on the ground that: (i) the Propylene Glycol does not have any therapeutic value or Prophylactic value. Thus it does not merit consideration as drug. (ii) the condensed chemical dictionary shows that these items have multifarious uses and these are not known in literature or trade parlance as drug intermediate and it does not have major use as an intermediate in the manufacture of any drug. (iii) the propylene glycol is mainly used as a solvent. Hence, the original assessment is in order.3. Learned Counsel stated in reply that they have a factory at Baroda, manufacturing, inter alia, medicaments. They h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(59)ECC390
1. The Respondents manufacture P or P medicines and filed a classification list for their product probofex capsule and liquid claiming classification under Item 1B of the old Central Excise Tariff and claiming exemption under Notification No. 17/70. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector felt that the product does not merit classification under T.I. 1B but it would be classifiable under T.I. 68 and issued show cause notice for the purpose. The Assistant Collector considered the reply to the show cause notice and found that in their own "Medical Times" January and March, 1996 their product probofex is mentioned. The Assistant Collector held that the product probofex is not an item of food going by the general usage of the term. He also did not accept the certificate given by the Food and Drug Control Authority that the product will not fall under the category of drug. He referred to their own "Medical Times" journal where the product was recommended for building up haemoglobin with a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1998)(59)ECC455
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals). In para-4 of the impugned order, the Ld.Collector (Appeals) has held as follows:-- I have carefully considered the ground's of application and the submissions made on behalf of the respondents. In the grounds of application, it is stated that M/s. Krebs Engg. P. Ltd. are not the real manufacturer as they manufacture the goods out of raw materials supplied by M/s. Madras Industries Lining Ltd. on collection of job charges. But, I find that no evidence has been let in the grounds of application, to establish that M/s. Krebs Engg. P. Ltd. are only "dummies" in the hands of the raw material suppliers. On the other hand, the respondents have stated that M/s. Krebs Engg. P. Ltd. are an independent unit with all the necessary parapharnalias. I also find that no notice has been issued to M/s. Krebs Engg. P. Ltd. who are stated to be SSI Units. The higher deemed credit availed by the respondents,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)LC80Tri(Delhi)
1. Order-in-Original No. 5/90, dated 24-10-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot is challenged in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of ceramic tiles in the factory near Rajkot in Gujarat, was effecting sales in wholesale to dealers within the State of Gujarat at the factory gate, stock-transferring goods from the factory to the branch at Bombay from where sales were made to dealers within the State of Maharashtra, stock transferring goods to certain consignment agents at Indore and Cochin through whom goods were sold to wholesale dealers within the States of Madhya Pradesh and Kerala respectively. Three price lists were filed in Part I, one in respect of Gujarat disclosing no trade discount, one in respect of Madhya Pradesh and Kerala claiming deduction of 8% trade discount and another in respect of Maharashtra claiming deduction of 3% trade discount. On approval of the price lists clearances were made on payment of appropriate duty. Enquiry showed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT472TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad extending the benefit of Modvat credit on spare parts of Crane, Electrical Control Panel, Soft Start Control Panel and Speed Reducer for Cane Unloader used in the factory of the respondents, who are manufacturers of sugar, by holding that the above mentioned items are capital goods within the meaning of Explanation to Rule 57Q.2. The learned DR Shri Tilak submits that it is only those items which are connected with the production or processing of goods which are considered to be capital goods within the meaning of Clause 1(a) of the Explanation to Rule 57Q and not other items such as those used to control electricity or material handling equipment.3. The learned Counsel on the other hand submits that all the items on which credit has been allowed are covered by the Tribunal's orders which have held that such items are capital goods within the meaning of Rule 57Q and entitled to Modvat c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT
Reported in : (1998)61TTJ(Bang.)619
Since the issues involved in the appeals filed by the assessee for the two successive years are connected, the appeals have been consolidated and a combined order is being passed for the sake of convenience.The assessee is a firm of 6 partners constituted by a partnership deed date 6-9-1995. The partners are mostly the family members of Dr. B.S.Ramamurthy, a qualified radiologist. Although the HUF of which Dr.Ramamurthy is a coparcener is also a partner in the assessed-firm, he himself however is not a partner in his individual capacity. At the same time again, Dr. Ramamurthy manages the entire affairs of the firm which offers ultrasonography and radiology services to patients and various persons.A search and Search operation was conducted by the Income Tax Department under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, on 6-2-1992, and thereafter on various other dates, the concluding date being 26-2-1992, in the premises of the assessee-firm as well as in the residential premises of Dr. Ramamur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT289TriDel
1. M/s. Nalanda Pen Mfg. Company Private Limited manufactured, among other articles, ball point pens and refills for ball point pens. One of the important part of the refills namely brass tips was got manufactured by them from seven Private Limited Companies on job work basis. The job workers were operating as Small Sector Industries. They were also buying such tips on outright basis from another manufacturer.M/s. Nalanda Pen Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., were filing classification lists from time to time. The job workers in the Small Sector Industries were exempted from licencing control having filed the requisite declarations from time to time in which the goods manufactured were declared as "Brass tips of the ball point pens" and benefit of Notification No.74/86 as amended by another notification was claimed for their duty free clearances. The classification of such goods was shown under Sub-heading 9608.00.2. M/s. Nalanda started manufacturing pens and refills from the year 1984 but commenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(133)ELT331TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 10-11-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, confirming the Order-in-Original, dated 8-8-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Berhampore.2. On two price lists, both effective from 1-3-1986 in Part VII filed by the appellant, the jurisdictional Superintendent issued show cause notice dated 6-6-1988 stating that appellant was manufacturing dutiable product and the value declared was not correct, inasmuch as the value of pipes and pipe fittings supplied by customers, the forwarding charges, packing charges and rubber lining charges had not been included in the assessable value. The policy proposed inclusion of these additional elements in the assessable value. Appellant resisted the notice contending that the processes undertaken by the appellant did not amount to manufacture, that the articles produced were not in any manner different from the pipes received from the customers and,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)66ITD168(Delhi)
1. These four appeals filed by the assessee and four cross-objections filed by the Revenue are dealt with together as these contain common issues. They are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. The facts in brief are that the ITO (TDS) Dehradun passed an order under s. 206C of the IT Act on 12th June, 1996 for the asst. yrs.1991-92 to 1994-95. The tax liability raised was at Rs. 2,24,72,801 (total). The assessee filed appeal and the CIT(A) Dehradun vide order dt. 29th November, 1996, confirmed the order of the ITO (TDS) Dehradun dismissing the appeal. Against the aforesaid order, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal for the concerned assessment years.In the meanwhile the ITO (TDS), Dehradun moved an application under s.154 of the Act on 10th April, 1997, before the CIT(A) Dehradun, contending that a mistake has occurred at the end of learned CIT(A) in entertaining the appeal under s. 246 of the Act. As no appeal lies against the order passed under s. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT406Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant Abir Chemicals manufacture S.O. Dyes falling under Chapter 32 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and dye intermediates falling under Chapter 29 CETA. On 21-6-1996 officers of Central Excise, Vapi Division I & II visited their factory and checked their stock with statutory records. The following discrepancies were detected: (i) 32528.19 Kg. of Several dye intermediates were found in excess than recorded balance in statutory production register RG1; (iii) 33,421.1 Kg. of different input/raw-materials were found in excess than the recorded balance in Modvat credit account RG 23A Part I; (iv) 497.68 Kg. of J. Acid was not physically available although the said quantity was shown as in stock in RG 1; (v) 8000 Kg. of Para Cresidine was not physically available though shown as in stock in Modvat credit account RG 23A Part I; (vi) 5176.895 Kg. of K Acid was found short when compared with recorded balance in RG 23A Part I account; 2. The S.O. dyes, dye intermediates, and d...
Tag this Judgment!