Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty amount of Rs.94,68,376.00 and an equivalent amount of personal penalty confirmed against and imposed upon the appellants by the impugned order of the Commissioner.2. Sh.R.N.Bajoria, ld.sr.adv. along with Shri J.P.Khaitan, ld.adv. and Shri K.K.Banerjee, ld.adv. appears for the appellants submits that the appellant is a small scale manufacturing unit engaged in the manufacture of thinners. During the course of visit of the officers to their factory, various verifications were conducted and certain documents were seized by the officers. As a result of scrutiny of the said documents, department entertained a view that the appellants are also engaged in the manufacture of other chemicals and as such their clearance value had exceeded the small scale clearances in terms of the notfn.no.175/86 and the appellants had been indulging into clearance of these goods without payment of duty. Based upon the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Reported in : (2001)(129)ELT639Tri(Bang.)
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Tata Telecom Ltd., Palghat against the impugned Order (Order-in-Appeal Nos. 31/2000 CE & 32/2000 CE) dated 22.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (appeals). Facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of telephones. Along with their phones they are supplying one number of Telephone Junction Box, technically called 'Modular Terminal Roset (MTR) in general and two numbers with their 1+1 telephone. These are manufactured at the Job-worker's premises out of parts purchased and supplied to them by the appellants.The adjudicating authority in the subject two Orders-in-Original had held that- (i) the assembling of MTR from the various components amounts to manufacture, which are classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading No.8535.90, (ii) the appellants who supplied the raw material are the manufacturer since the appellant during certain period and availed Modvat credit, though...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. Case called. None appeared on behalf of the appellants nor any request for adjournment. We find that since the appellants being a department of Government of India Undertaking, clearance is required from the Committed of Secretaries to proceed with the matter as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of O.N.G.C reported in 1992 (61) ELT Page 3 as well as in its clarificatory judgement reported in 1964 (70) ELT 45. No clearance has been placed on our record. In view of this position, this appeal is dismissed for want clearance. Stay petition also dismissed accordingly. However, the party is at liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as and when clearance is produced....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. Appealed has, come up for final hearing today, the issue revolves around the eligibility of S.S.I. exemption under Notification 175/86 & 1/93 on products which are being manufactured and cleared with the brand name "RONAN NAMTECH" which is a combination of the names of the foreign collaborator & of the present appellant. Appellants have taken the plea, that the alleged brand name which is being affixed on the products, was not `foreign-brand' name and therefore is not covered by the exclusion clauses of the said notification. There is no finding to this aspect of the fact whether the said name affixed on the products is a `foreign brand name' or owned by `a foreign company' or it is `a hybrid Indian brand name' owned by and company associated with the present appellant. This matter of fact requires i.e. determination.Therefore after hearing the matter for some time, we are of the opinion that this vital fact, whether the goods affixed with the alleged brand name are eligibl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(76)ECC246
1. In all these batch of appeals, [numbering 25 appeals] common questions of law and facts are involved, hence they are all taken up together for disposal, as per law. The questions that arise for consideration in these appeals are as follows:-- (1) As to whether the contemplated action for recovery of duty for violation of the Notification is required to be initiated by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in terms of the Notification or by the Commissioner of Customs? (2) As to whether the action initiated in all the appeals by the Commissioner of Customs is beyond his jurisdiction of the Notification? (3) As to whether the appellants who are the importing hospitals (charitable) have committed violation of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. dated 1.3.88? (4) As to whether the demands raised by the Commissioner of Customs is barred by time in terms of the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962? (5) As to whether confiscation and grant of redemption on imposition of fine and p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT253Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The dispute involved in the present appeal is as to whether the various forged products manufactured by the appellants, would be properly classifiable under heading 7326.90, as contended by the appellants, or the same would be classifiable under heading 8483.00, as found by the Revenue. The Commissioner vide his impugned Order by holding that the forged/rolled rings/blanks manufactured by the appellants are properly classifiable under heading 8483.00., which during the relevant period, attracted higher rate of duty and by denying the benefit of Notification No.223/88-CE dated 23.6.88, has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.8,32,33,408.58 and imposed penalty or Rs. 50 lakhs.2. The appellants' contention is that the machining undertaken by them on the forged/rolled product is to make the forged article fit for further machining for the purpose of converting the same into parts of the machines at the customer's end. As such, it is submitted by the appellants that the processing undert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(137)ELT1289TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Cental Excise.2. In this case certain goods were found unaccounted in the RG-I record. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the goods and for imposing penalty under the provisions of Rule 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules.4. The contention of the appellant is that goods were found in the factory which were not entered in their RG-I Register, Therefore, the goods were not liable for confiscation in view of the decision of the tribunal in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Raipur, reported in 2000 (91) ECR 569 (Tribunal). The contention of the appellant is that were only liable to a penalty of Rs.2,000/- under the Rule 226 of Cental Excise Rules.5. The contention of the Revenue is that appellant had not accounted the goods in their RG-I Register. Therefore, the goods were liable to confiscation as per the provisions or Rule 173Q (i)(b). Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. JCT Ltd. is whether Lead Ash and Residue obtained in the process of galvanised steel wires can be removed under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting their appeal has only relied upon the earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 35/CE/CHD/96 dated 30-1-96 in their own case; that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1793/2000-B dated 16.10.2000 has remanded the matter to the Asstt.Commissioner for afresh decision in the light of the ratio of the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Wyeth Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Bombay, 2000 (39) RLT 745 (CEGAT-LB). He, therefore, requested that this appeal may also be remanded to the Asstt. Commissioner for afresh adjudication.3. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. has no objection, if the matter is remanded to the Asstt. Commissioner.4. I have considered the submissions of bot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue on the following findings of the Collector. "The next question is whether the duty is chargeable on the wires so drawn and given the copper coating when both the alloy steel wires and the copper coated alloy steel wires fall under the same tariff sub item. The Advocate has again relied upon a few case laws and submitted that no duty is chargeable when the goods fall under the same tariff item. In state of Tamil Nadu Vs. Pyarelal Malhotra reported in 1998 ELT 1582 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that it is necessary to determine whether the goods ceased to be goods of one taxable description and have become those of a commercially different category and description in order to attract the levy. Even though this judgement is under the Sales Tax law, yet the underlying principle can be taken note of. Similarly, the CEGAT Special Bench 'C', New Delhi in Golden Paper Udyog (P) Ltd., Faridabad Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Delhi 1983 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Varun Fabrics Ltd., the issue involved is whether the length of galleries is to be included to the length of chambers while determining the Annual Production Capacity of the Hot Air Stenter.2. I heard Shri K.K. Anand, Ld. Advocate for the Appellate and Shri S.C. Pushkarna, Ld. DR 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 Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. Accordingly Tribunal held that the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of R.M. Gupta Textile, 2000(40) RLT 234 to the effect that galleries are not to be included in the dimension of h...
Tag this Judgment!