Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1.1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S.Ingots falling under Chapter Sub-heading 7206.90 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A the said goods are notified for the purpose of levy of duty of excise under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the annual capacity of production in the manner as prescribed under the provisions of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the appellants' annual capacity of production was determined by the proper officer in terms of the provisions of Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur vide his Order dated 23.3.98 fixed the annual capacity of production of the appellants' furnace as 9600 MT, based upon the appellants' declaration that the capacity of furnace was 3 M.T. For the said purpose, the appellants referred to the manufacturer's invoice supported by a certificate from them certifying the capacity of the furnace to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The Assistant Collector has confirmed the duty denying the duty in terms of Notfn.No.175/86. The party was not granted the benefit solely on the ground that they have affixed the name of "KEB" (Karnatka Electricity Board) on the goods sold to them in terms of the agreement entered into. On an appeal filed by the party the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee following the earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The respondents also said that this issue had come for consideration in a series of cases and held that affixing the name of Electricity Board does not bar the assessee from seeking the benefit of the Notification as the words "K"B" is not brand name or a trade name, but refers to Karnatka Electricity Board. In this context he drew our attention to the latest decision of the Tribunal as per Order No.1360/99 dt.11.6.99. Since the issue involved herein has been considered by the Tribunal in a series of cases, following the same we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that they had taken credit on original copies of the invoice sand they had not produced any evidence to show that Duplicate copies of invoice have been lost in transit.3. The contention of the appellant is that vide letter dated 12.6.94 they had applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Central excise for availing the credit on original copy of invoice as the Duplicate Invoice copies were lost during the transit. The contention of the appellant is that without deciding this application a show cause notice was issued and the benefit was disallowed. Now, the issue for availing the benefit on original Invoice copies, in case the Duplicate Invoice copy is lost in transit is settled by the Larger Bench in the case of C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics Pvt. ltd. & Ors., reported in 2000 (37) RLT 501 (CEGAT-Larger Bench). The Larger Bench of the Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT118TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether Modvat Credit is available in respect of lubricants under Rule 57A when the Respondents M/s. Shree as capital goods Credit. When the matter was called no on was present on behalf of the Respondents. In fact, the notice issued to them regarding date of hearing has been returned back from the postal authorities with the remark "SBCM has been sealed." I, therefore, heard Shri S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. and perused the records.2. The issue involved in the present appeal has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2000 (38) RLT 718, wherein it was held that lubricant oil and grease which are used for lubricating machine/machinery which are used for manufacture of final products, are eligible inputs. The Larger Bench has also held in the said decision that the declaration filed by the Assessee in terms of Rule 57Q is sufficient for the purpose of extending credit on g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether Modvat Credit can be availed of on the strength of original copy of the invoices.2. M/s Hindustan Chemicals, respondents, have submitted under their letter dt. 19-1-2001, to dismiss the appeal as Modvat Credit can be availed of on the basis of original invoices interms of sub-Rule (2A) to Rule 57 G of the Central Excise Rules. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, Ld DR., submitted that as per the decision of the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of CCE New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics Private Ltd. 2000 (117) ELT 571, the manufacturer can take credit of the duty paid on inputs only on the basis of duplicate copy of the invoices and when duplicate copy of invoice has been lost in transit, he can take credit of duty paid on the inputs on the basis of original invoices provided he satisfies the Assistant Commissioner about the loss of duplicate copy; that in present matter the Respondents had taken the modvat credit on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2. The Tribunal vide order dated 3.4.2000 directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.24,242/- and the case was fixed for reporting compliance on 2.6.2000. On that day none appeared on behalf of the appellant and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act.3. Appellant filed an application for recalling of the Final order and the application was fixed for hearing on 20.9.2000. On that day the appellant made a request for adjournment of the case and the same was adjourned to 16th October, 2000. On 16th October, 2000, Shri Feroz Ahmed, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and made a request that sometime Misc. application was field for modiciation of the said order and the same was not listed. The case was adjourned to 6.12.2000.On 6.12.2000, the Misc. application as well application for recalling of Final order was listed. shri B.N. Shah, Advocate appeared and asked for adjournment. The case was adjou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2001)(76)ECC345
1. The issue involved in the present appeal is the availability of exemption Notfn. No. 64/95-CE dt. 16.3.95, as amended by Notfn. No.116/95-CE dt. 13.11.95 in respect of the railway wagons manufactured by the appellants.2. The original Notfn. No. 64/95 granted exemption to the railway wagons provided the same were intended for use by Indian Railways. The said notification was amended by Notfn. No. 116/95 including an additional condition to the effect that such wagons should be owned by the Indian Railways or the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Inasmuch as the wagons in question were procured by the Indian Railways for its customer M/s. TISCO under a scheme known as 'Own Your Wagon Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as OYW scheme), the Revenue entertained a view that railways are not the owners of the wagons in question inasmuch as the entire cost of the wagons was realised by the Indian Railways from M/s. TISCO before placing the order upon the appellant and as such the ownership of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. These are 11 appeals filed by M/s. B.H.E.L. against different Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing their appeals for non-compliance with the interim Stay Order passed by him.2. Though these matters were listed for hearing of only stay petitions but as the issue involved is in very narrow compass, I have taken all the appeals for disposal with the consent of both the sides.Accordingly, the recovery of the dues are stayed in all these matters.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed appeals for non-compliance with the requirement of predeposit of duty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act without affording any personal hearing was even granted at the time of passing the interim stay Order nor the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the applications for modification of the interim stay order filed by the Appellants. As the impugned orders had been issued in gross violation of Principle of Natural Justice all the Orders are set aside and the matters are remande...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(129)ELT759TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal tiled by M/s Groz Beckert Asia Ltd, is whether the Modvat Credit is available in respect of Tempering Oil, Cutting Oil and Nickel Catalyst under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri. K.K.Anand, ld. Advocate mentioned that he is not pressing matter regarding availability of credit in respect of Nickel Catalyst.He submitted that tempering oil is used in tempering process during the manufacture of Hosiery and Knitting Machines needle; that the oil is employed as heat transfer medium for indirect heating of needle in the process called tempering; that the hardened needles after quenching are kept for certain time in hot oil bath having temperature up to 275 degree C; that due to this process stresses are relieved and needle acquire more toughness. He, further, explained that cutting oil is used for the slot cutting in the Needle; that every needle is required to have a slot and during the process of slotting, cutting oil is continuously poured ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed as penalty on M/s S.K.S. Ltd. 2. Shri K.K.Anand, Ld Advocate, submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs as the applicants had taken the credit in their PLA on the date of submissions of cheques in the bank and before the date of clearance of cheques which resulted in clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty; that Collector (Appeal) has decided their appeal without hearing them; that they had cleared the goods on payment of duty after depositing the cheques in the bank and the duty stands immediately credited to the Excise Department as soon as the TR-6 challan alongwith the cheque is presented to the bank; that applicants loose their control over the documents and, therefore, it cannot be said that the goods were cleared without payment of duty; that in any case cheques have not been dishonoured; that the unit has been registered with BIFR; that the factory is al...
Tag this Judgment!