Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT736TriDel
1. The assessees in this case received duty paid tab seals falling under Heading 8309. They further processed these goods making hole in each tab seal and inserting plastic washer. The finished washers were cleared by them on payment of duty. Subsequently, they filed refund claim on the ground that the goods received by them were not completely manufactured goods and also that once the duty had been paid, the duty could not be demanded for the second time on any goods falling under the same sub-heading. The Assistant Collector held that the goods as were received by the assessees could not be called seals but were merely iron and steel products. They could be termed as seal only after insertion of plastic ring or washer. On the ground that conversion amounted to manufacture and duty was leviable once again, he rejected the claim for refund. The Collector (Appeals) in his order did not agree with the Assistant Collector that seals received by the assessees could not operate as seals un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT49Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case proceedings were initiated against the Appellants for denying Modvat credit of Rs. 4,31,360/- on the ground that it has been wrongly availed of on the total quantity of ammonia used in the manufacture of Nitric Acid during the period April 1986 to August 1986 under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules. The Department's case is that the Appellants manufacture Nitric Acid. It was alleged that the Appellants have taken credit on the input ammonia used in the manufacture of Nitric Acid which is assessed to 'nil' rate of duty and this Nitric Acid is ultimately used in the manufacture of their final products Ammonium Nitrate. It was, alleged that as per Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules the credit allowed on any input need not be denied on the ground that an intermediate product has come into existence during the course of manufacture of the final product and that such intermediate product is for the time being exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)61TTJ(Delhi)770
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.The facts in brief are that the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Dehradun passed an order under section 206C of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act_on 12-6-1996 for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95. The tax liability raised was at Rs. 2,24,72,801 (total).The assessee filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) Dehradun vide orders dated 29-11-1996 confirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer (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 Income Tax Officer (TDS) Dehradun moved an application under section 154 of the Act on10-4-1997 before the Commissioner (Appeals) Dehradun, contending that a mistake has occurred at the end of learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(98)ELT114TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants at the relevant time, were engaged in the manufacture of plastic cabinets classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2) of the First Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and trading in accessories such as knobs, handles, drums, spindles, springs, panels etc. During the period from 1-4-1978 to 28-2-1979, they had purchased these accessories totalling value of Rs. 9,60,671/- on which they paid excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,033.55 @ 5% ad valorem under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Under Notification No. 68/71-C.E., dated 29-5-1971, plastic cabinets falling under Tariff Item 15A(2) and made out of either duty paid polystyrene falling under Tariff Item 15A(1) or made out of scrap of plastic were exempt from the payment from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. However, the appellants paid duty of Rs. 1,13,714.57 during the above mentioned period @ 5% ad valorem under Tariff Item 68. They filed an applicati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(101)ELT356TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 28-11-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the generator set of 50 KVA was denied to the appeal as capital goods and penalty was also imposed as the appellant has wrongly availed the credit and interest of Rs. 838/- was also levied under Rule 57U(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. When the case was called, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appellant vide their communication dated 9-10-1997 made request to decide the appeal on merits.3. In the grounds of appeal, the contention of the appellant is that they have installed the generator set after 23-7-1996 and after 23-7-1996, generator set of 50 KVA were entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods. In the appeal memo they submitted that the D.G. Set reached the factory of the appellant on 29-6-1996 and it was unloaded outside the factory gate. The Generator set was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(104)ELT118TriDel
1. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, there was a request from them for an adjournment.On going through the issue involved in this case, we find that the matter itself can be disposed of in their absence. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri S. Kannan, learned JDR.2. The issue pertains to selling of loose tea by the respondents to the retailers by packing in a paper on which word "Mumtaj" is printed with a picture of a lady sipping a cup of tea. Shri Kannan submitted that loose tea was sold in the Polythene paper bags and accordingly, circular issued by the Board in this context referred to by the Collector is not applicable.3. We have carefully considered the matter. The Collector (Appeals) has analysed the position observing that Adjudicating Authority admits that word tea is not written on polybags. It is vague to conclude that cup shown in the hands of a lady in the picture refers to tea. She has taken note of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT296TriDel
1. This is an application for dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 20,111.60.2. In this case benefit of Modvat credit in respect of hose pipe and stopper motor cards was denied on the ground that these goods cannot be considered as Capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that hose pipes are used to cool the accessories of the furnace and the process of cooling of these equipments is essential for the manufacture of iron and steel. In respect of stopper motor cards, she submits that these are parts of spectrometer and the spectrometer is used for testing the molten metal taken from the furnace during the process of manufacture of ingots and billets so as to obtain steel of desired quality.Therefore she submits, these goods are capital goods covered under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.5. In this case benefit of Modvat credit in respect of hose pipes and stopper motor cards was de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(75)LC75Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice bui has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period from 1.4.1982 to 3.12.1982. The appellant as job worker received raw materials from M/s Orient General Industries Ltd., manufacture Rotors and returned the same to the supplier who used the same in the manufacture of electric fans. Appellant was, from time to time, filing price-lists declaring assessable value as the sum total of the cost of raw materials, manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit on Rotors and clearing the Rotors on payment of appropriate duty.3. Show Cause Notice dated 3.8.1984 was issued raising two main contentions. The first contention is that appellant cleared 40" size Rotors at Rs. 16.50 per unit whereas C.A. certificate dated 15.3.1982 showed value to be Rs. 19 for Rotors which the appellant declared and in the next revised price-list effective from 30.9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)LC78Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute in this appeal arises in relation to the price list filed by the respondent on geared motors, manufactured and captively consumed in the manufacture of signal machines. The price list declared assessable value as sum total of the cost of raw materials, manufacturing cost and 10.10% marginal profit. The balance sheet for the year showed overhead expenditure to the extent of 31.75% and profit to the extent of 6.10%. Show cause notice was issued proposing addition of overhead expenditure and also 6.10% as margin and profit instead of 10.1%. The profit margin taken from the balance sheet obviously related to the final product and not the product capitavily consumed. The Asstt. Collector, after hearing the respondent, confirmed the demand.The Collector (Appeals) set aside order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication of determining the value and Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. Since the comparable price of geared motors was not available, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(75)LC89Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR and perused and papers.2. The dispute in the appeal is whether interest @ 18% per annum on advances received by appellant from certain customers under contracts with reference to which price lists No. 321 and 323 were filed is liable to be included in the assessable value of fibre glass crown RI3 glass wool mat manufactured and cleared by appellant. It is now well settled that in order that such interest could be added to the assessable value it must be shown that the fact of receiving an advance had some connection with an affected price. The matter was not considered by the lower authorities from this angle. The memorandum of appeal states that out of a large number of customers, appellant collected advance only from a few customers as security for the due performance of the contracts and that in many cases prices charged to other customers ...
Tag this Judgment!