Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)(103)ELT661Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In October, 1991 the officers of the Customs Department seized from the possession of the appellant tools of various kinds such as drills, screw-drivers, saw blades etc. on the belief that the goods have been smuggled into India. The appellant could not produce evidence of importation of the goods, or legal acquisition by him. He said that the goods had been sold to him by third party. Subsequently, he produced some documents showing purchase of some of the goods. These documents were found to be correct on verification and goods covered by them were returned to the appellant. Notice was issued proposing confiscation of goods in respect of which the appellant could not produce evidence of importation or legal acquisition. Adjudicating upon the notice, the Additional Collector [whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals)] confiscated the goods with an option to redemption on payment of fine and imposed a penalty on the appellant. Hence this appeal.2. It is contended by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(75)LC117Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of storage tanks and accessories without possessing a central excise licence, cleared the goods in 1985-86 and 1986-87 without payment of duty and without following the central excise procedures. Two tanks in a finished state found in the factory were seized on 16.12.1986. Show cause notice dated 9.6.1987 was issued proposing penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, confiscation and demand of duty of Rs. 1,850.00 in respect of the two tanks. The notice was resisted by the appellant, contending, inter alia, that the value of clearances in respect of each of the years was well below Rs. 15 lakhs, the limit for exemption under the SSI Notification and, therefore, there was no obligation to obtain licence, follow central excise procedures or pay duty. Overruling these contentions, the Senior Superintendent of Central Excise confirmed the proposals in the notice and ordered confiscation of the two tanks lying rejected on payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT365TriDel
1. Appellants filed these ten appeals a common Order-in-Appeal dated 16-5-1990 passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals). In the impugned order, the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bombay denied the benefit of Notification No. 71/86-CE., dated 10-2-1986 as amended in respect of Countervailing Duty (CVD).2. Appellants made import of receivers, capacitors, microphones, wires, resistors, volume controls etc. through various Bills of Entry. The appellants in the Bills of Entry claimed classification of these goods under Tariff Heading 90.21 of the Customs Tariff as parts of hearing aids and also claimed the benefit of concessional rate of basic duty in terms of Notification No. 114/77, dated 1-7-1977 and also claimed the benefit of CVD in terms of Notification No. 71/86-CE., dated 10-2-1986.The adjudicating authority ordered the classification of the goods on merit in their respective headings and the benefit of Notification No.114/77-Cus. was granted to the appellants. The benefit of Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(99)ELT589TriDel
1. The common appellant in these appeals is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appeal No. E/3826/90-A arises out of the refund claim in respect of the period from 1-1-1987 to 30-6-1987 on account of interest on receivables and cash discount. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim and his order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Appeal No. E/69/91-A arises out of nine refund claims for the period from September, 1987 to February, 1989 on account of three elements, namely, the price reduction on account of various reasons after clearance, freight incurred being in excess of the freight shown in the invoice and payment of octroi. These claims were also rejected by the Assistant Collector and his order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).3. There can be no doubt that interest on receivables is to be deducted in order to arrive at the assessable va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT187TriDel
1. The appellants desire disposal on merits which we proceed to do after hearing Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. JDR.2. The Central Excise officers intercepted a lorry carrying tea waste which was certified to be duly denatured by the jurisdictional Superintendent on the face of the accompanied gate pass. Physical examination of the consignment did not show presence of denaturing agents such as lime or cowdung. However, the accompanying bill mentioned denaturing with lime. The samples of the goods were drawn.The Chemical Examiner did not detect presence of lime or cowdung. A clear statement was given by Shri Eliezer, Factory Officer to the effect that although on record the tea waste was denatured, the jurisdictional Superintendent had permitted clearance without such denaturing. On the evidence in the form of statement and test report of the samples, a show cause notice was issued demanding Central Excise duty on the goods. The Astt. Collector confirmed the demand for duty and CESS and also im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(100)ELT484TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector, Customs (Appeals), Bombay whereby the Collector, Customs (Appeals) granted the benefit of Notification No.71/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 in respect of countervailing duty (CVD) to the earphones imported by the respondent. He held in the impugned order the earphones as part of hearing aid and ordered classification of earphones under Heading 90.21 of the Excise Tariff.2. Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR appearing on behalf of the appellant Collector submitted that the respondents made import of earphone only and the earphone is classifiable under sub-heading 8518 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submits that the Heading 90.21 of the Central Excise Tariff only includes hearing aid and not the earphones. He therefore, prays that the earphones are not classifiable under Heading 90.21 of the Central Excise Tariff and are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 71/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986.3. Learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(99)ELT441TriDel
1. Appellants are absent and unrepresented in spite of notice of hearing. However, they have sent a request for decision of the appeals on merit. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. M/s. Sindhu Chemical Products (for short, SCP) a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of Ultra Marine Blue was transferring the same in bulk to M/s. Sindhu Agencies (for short, SA) and M/s. New Sindhu Agency (for short, NSA) who pack the same affixing brand name and particulars of SCP and sell the same to wholesale dealers. SCP was availing the benefit of SSI exemption as per Notification No. 175/86 which allowed total exemption for clearances up to the value of Rs. 15 lacs and did not pay duty during the period 1986-87 to 1988-89.3. Investigation showed that the three concerns are partnership firms with common partners, that the activities of SA and NSA are carried out in the premises belonging to SCP, that SA and NSA were using the brand name and they were receiving the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(99)ELT254TriDel
1. Respondent is absent, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of various types of voltage stabilisers and cut-out systems with the brand name of the buyer M/s.Prompt India Ltd., was filing price lists from time to time and on approval thereof, clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty. In respect of the period covered by Price List No. 1/88-89 and other price lists, show cause notice was issued stating that the respondent and the buyer have to be regarded as related persons and, therefore, the assessable value for the purpose of computation of duty should be based on the price charged by the buyer to wholesale dealers and proposing demand of differential duty on that basis. The respondent resisted the notice denying the alleged relationship. The Assistant Collector upheld this contention and dropped the demand and his order was confirmed by the Collector (App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT706TriDel
1. The issue relates to eligibility of Modvat credit on the basis of subsidiary gatepasses.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that they availed Modvat on the basis of subsidiary gatepasses after June 1994 and for mere technical offence and on the basis of this minor irregularities Modvat credit cannot be denied.3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. DR submits that as per Notification No. 16/94 credit on subsidiary gatepasses was eligible only till 30th June, 1994 and since in this instant case credit has been availed after the date the same is not admissible.4. Considered. Since Notification No. 16/94 indicates cut off date for availing Modvat credit and the Modvat credit on subsidiary gatepasses has been admittedly availed after the specified date Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal. In view of this the impugned order is upheld and appeal rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(75)LC124Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 9/C/DLH/96 dated 15.1.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, confirming the order-in-original No. 1339/95 dated 15.11.1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.2. Appellant imported 200 pieces of cordless telephones of Hong Kong origin from a Hong Kong supplier and produced Bill of Entry dated 6.9.1995 and other import papers and declared value as US $ 18.75 per piece C&F. It is stated that the Custom House initially valued the goods at US $ 35 per piece. On 11.9.1995 appellant wrote to the Assistant Commissioner stating that he was not prepared to accept this value and proposing to pay duty under protest. Thereafter, the value was reduced to US $ 32.40 per piece CIF. A formal order was also passed by the Assistant Commissioner which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The Assistant Commissioner did not issue any show cause notice to the appellant. Shri M. Ali, JDR...
Tag this Judgment!