Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(75)ECC534
1. In all these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved and hence they are all taken up together for disposal, as per law.2. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the unjust enrichment involved in the grant of refund which has already become due on the conclusion of the entire proceedings and reaching finality by disposal of the appellants' cases before the Tribunal.There is no Revenue appeal in the Apex Court in terms of the Tribunal's order directing refund of the matter. The authorities were required to have refunded the amounts in terms of law. However, they again issued show cause notices on the premise that the refund is hit by unjust enrichment and the same are not liable to be refunded. The appellants in this matter contend that in so far as the claims of refund after the amendment to Section 1 IB of the Central Excise Act introducing the provisions of unjust enrichment is concerned, such claims are clearly not enforceable and they do not p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(149)ELT885TriDel
1. Today the matter is posted for hearing the stay application filed by M/s Royal Processors P. Ltd. The issue involved int eh appeal is whether length of galleries is also to be included to the length of the chamber while deciding the Annual Production Capacity of the Hot air Stenter. As the issue stands decided by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal, the recovery of the duty confirmed is stayed and the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. I heard Shri R.Santhanam, Advocate for the Appellant, and Shri K.Panchatcharan, JDR, for the Revenue. The issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur, Final Order No.16/2000/NB (DB) dt. 4-1-2001, wherein it was held that the gallery which is having no fans or radiators attached to it cannot come within the purview of "any other equipment" as contemplated by Explanation I to Hot Air Stenter In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Jindal Polymer, the issue involved is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on Furnace Oil is to be restricted to 10% adv. In view of notification No. 5/94/-CE(N.T.), dated 1.3.1994, as amended.2. Shri Narshimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that the appellants manufacture polysterchip and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs: that during the period from August, 1997 to January, 1998, they took Modvat Credit of the entire duty paid on the furnace oil used by them as fuel; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No.8/98 dated 30.4.1998 disallowed the Modvat Credit amounting to Rs.9,30,566.66 paise and imposed a penalty of equivalent amount, holding that the modvat credit in respect of furnace oil was restricted to 10% adv. and that in view of the amendment to Explanation to Rule 57B made on 2.3.1994 which was clarificatory in nature the restriction of 10% adv would be applicable to Credit taken under Rule 57B of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT50Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The only dispute in the present appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of notfn.no.133/86-CE dt.1.3.86 which grants concessional rate of duty in respect of Epoxide Resin classifiable under heading 3907.30 and Polyester Resin falling under 3907.91 or the benefit would not be available to the mixture of resin or resin added within different additions would be chargeable to higher rate of duty in terms of notfn.no.14/92.2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Asutosh Law, ld.adv. and Shri P.K.Pal, ld.adv. we find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the respondents by the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Asian Paints Ltd.- 1999(114)ELT 972(T). The Bench observed that inasmuch as there is no dispute about the classification of the product in question falling under heading 3907, the benefit of notfn.no.133/86 cannot be denied to the assessee. Identical is the position be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Monnet Ispat Ltd. for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 3,41,007-52 paise which has been disallowed as Modvat Credit and penalty of Rs.15,000/- imposed on them.2. Shri K.K.Gupta, learned Advocate submitted that the Modvat Credit has been disallowed in respect of Boric Acid which was used along with ramming mass for lining of the furnace; that it has been held by the Tribunal in CCE, Chandigarh vs. Bhusan an Industries Ltd., 2000 (119) ELT 129 (T) that Modvat credit is available in respect of ramming mass, foundry fluxes and chemicals; that similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Steels Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune, 1998 (99) ELT 620; that Boric Acid is also a chemical used in the furnace along with ramming mass and, therefore, Modvat credit is available to them.He further, submitted that Modvat credit has also been disallowed to them in respect of H.R.sheets which are used along with refractories to protect refractory lining from dam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. The appellants before us have imported certain equipments for manufacture of polyester partially oriented yarn and flat yarn and drawings and engg. documents along with knowhow and technology by entering into two collaboration agreements with M/s. Samsung Co.Ltd., Korea and M/s. Cheil Synthetic Inc, Korea, and associate company being a part of the Samsung group. Agreement 'A' was for providing licence, knowhow and technology by the seller to the appellants for the manufacture of the product in the plant to be set up in India with the equipments to be supplied under agreement 'B'. Under agreement 'B' the seller was to supply to the appellant equipments as listed in the said agreement for a total consideration of F.O.B. US dollars 3486000 plus DM 12,00,000 plus JY 885000000. The fees for the licence, knowhow and technology under agreement 'A' was of a lumpsum amount of US Dollars 14 lakhs. The appellant states that the two agreements were totally independent agreements for which sepa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(138)ELT650TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether the Respondents, M/s Guljag Chemicals (Pvt). Ltd, are eligible to avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs used for packing the final product on which central Excise duty is paid on the basis of MRP under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.2. I heard Shri Bheema Shankar, Ld. SDR and Shri P.K. Mittal Ld.Advocate. I find that the lower Appellate Authority has relied upon the earlier Order in Appeal No. 360/99 dt. 29-11-99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) on the same issue in the case of the same Respondents holding that Modvat Credit is admissible on HDPE bags even when duty on the finished product has been paid under Section 4A of the Act. The Revenue had preferred appeal against the said Order which has been upheld by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/2000/2000 NB. dt.4-12-2000, holding that HDPE bags are eligible inputs whose costs is included in the assessable value of the detergents. Shri P.K. Mittal, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. After hearing for some time with reference to the Stay petition, we find that the matter itself can be disposed of. Accordingly appeal was taken for regular hearing.2. As can be seen from the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was brought to our notice that before rejecting the appeal for non-complaince no personal hearing has been granted.4. We find that Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that Quasi Judicial authority are supposed to pass an order after providing an opportunity of hearing. Since the opportunity has not been granted in this case, following the consistent view of the Tribunal, the matter has been remanded to the concerned Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the stay matter afresh on providing an opportunity. Thus, this appeal is disposed of. Stay petition also just disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. This is an application filed by M/s Deepak Castings Pvt. Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit, of duty amounting to Rs. 3,44,100/- and penalty amounting to Rs. 1 lakh.2. Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture M.S.Ingots and hot re-rolled products in induction furnace and re-rolling Mills respectively; that the Commissioner provisionally fixed the Annual Capacity of Production to be 2294MT under Order dt.9-10-97; that the Joint Commissioner has confirmed differential duty and imposed penalty which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal) under the impugned Order; that the Commissioner had finally fixed the Aunnual Production Capacity also to be 2294 MT which was challanged by him before the Appellate Tribunal which had remanded the matter for re-consideration; that as the final order itself has been remanded, no differential duty liability on the basis of provisional Order can be fastened on the Applicants; that after the Final Order was passed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. Today the matter is posted for reporting compliance of the Stay Order No. S/778/2000 (NB) dt. 8-11-2000 under which M/s frontier Polymers (P) Ltd, Appellants, were directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty confirmed under the impugned Order.2. Shri Pawan, Representative of the Company, submitted that the Stay Order was passed without taking into consideration the submissions filed by them which was received by the Tribunal on 6-11-2000; that unfortunately the stay submissions were nt placed before the Bench and Stay Order was passed without considering the same. He, further, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture water tanks made of plastics and avail of modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that a Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 8-12-94 for dis-allowing the modvat credit of Rs. 70,200/- availed by them in June 94 on the ground that invoices issued by the consignment stockist were not prescribed documents for availment of modvat credit; that the D...
Tag this Judgment!