Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(96)LC294Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the duty demand of Rs. 18,92,881.82 made on the appellant under the impugned order in Original No.9/97/CAC/CC-I dated 27.1.1997 of the Commissioner of Customs-I, New Customs House, Mumbai.2. Brief facts relevant to the dispute are that the appellant is a merchant exporter. The imported materials under DEEC scheme. The materials so imported were cleared without payment of customs duty as provided under Notification No. 159/90-Cus dated 30.3.1990. The goods were imported as replenishment in view of exports already undertaken and the appellants were not entitled to sell the goods in view of the provisions contained in para 250(2) of Exim Policy. Under the policy, if the exported goods had availed themselves of modvat facility in respect of inputs used in their production, the goods imported by way of replenishment could not be sold. The appellants had also bound themselves to the Customs Authorities to this effect. Being merchant exporters, the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT249Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that galvanising or electro- plating of wires and strips, which the respondent does amount to manufacture so as to result in the emergence of a new and different commodity.2. The Collector (Appeals) has been guided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes v. State of Kerala - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 513 that galvanising of tubes is not a process of manufacture and it does not change the essential characteristic of pipes or tubes, altering neither their structure nor their function.3. The appeal questions this finding on the ground that galvanising and electroplating are different process and the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment should not apply to a case of electroplating.4. We are unable to agree. The processes are no doubt quite different.However, the net result is the same, depositing of metal on a sheet or article of metal. In the case of galvanising the metal is deposited by dipping the art...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. Arguing for the appellants Shri.Raghu submitted that while enhancing the value of the imported goods, the adjudicating authority has not given any specific reasons. Further more the pleas of the party have not been considered while passing the Order. He submitted that in a similar facts and circumstances of the case with reference to the impugned order No.54/95, the Southern Bench at Chennai has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for denovo consideration. In this context he drew our attention to Para 5 of the said Order (SIC)(354/dt 7.3.2000 which is as under:- "We have considered the prayer for disposal of the appeal as the appeal has been filed in 1995 which appeals are being taken up for disposal. Hence, while granting waiver of the pre-deposit and stay of its recovery, we take up the appeal for disposal as per law. As we notice that there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and the appellants documents pertaining to the declaration and transaction va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2002)81ITD482(Ahd.)
1. This appeal filed by the assesses is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 10th Feb., 2000 for asst. yr. 1993-94.2. The main ground involved is against the addition of Rs. 1,02,97,689 on account of short-term capital gain on the sale of business undertaking of the assessee as a going concern.3. The assessee-firm was engaged in the business of manufacture of components for pharmaceuticals equipments upto 31st Dec., 1992 and w.e.f. 1st Jan., 1993 it sold the entire business undertaking as a going concern, lock stock and barrel, at a slump price of Rs. 1.25.crores to Shah & Parikh Agency (P) Ltd. as per agreement dt. 31st Dec., 1992 entered into by the assessee-firm with the said company. Clause (1) of the agreement dt. 31st Dec., 1992 reads as under: "1. The vendor shall sell and purchaser shall purchase the entire business undertaking of the vendor under the name Industrial Machinery Associates as a going concern including leasehold land, buildings, plants and machinery, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)(145)ELT82Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants had a contract with M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited, whereby defective compressors earlier manufactured by M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. were repaired by the present appellants. The revenue alleged that the process undertaken by the respondents amounted to manufacture of compressors on which duty was leviable. In this belief the adjudicating Collector after hearing the appellants confirmed duty of Rs. 2,51,07,053.73 of the appellants and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. The appeal is against this order.2. It is claimed that the facts in the present case were fully covered by Tribunal's Order No. C-II/3572-77/ WZB/2000, dt. 20-11-2000 (Certified on 4-12-2000) [2001 (132) E.L.T. 748 (T)] (Appeal Nos.E/2898, 2866-R/99-Mum.)] (M/s. Dattanand Refrigeration Services Pvt Ltd. and M/s. S.C. Industries). The Tribunal in that order had listed the process undertaken by the appellants in that case in Paragraph 5 of the cited order. We find that the process undertaken by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2002)80ITD610(Hyd.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee. Relevant assessment year is 1989-90. This appeal is filed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad, dt. 29th July, 1995. Assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal : "The Dy. CIT, assessments Special Range-4, Hyderabad, and the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad, erred in setting aside the arguments that the method of calculation of book profits under Section 115J, being a debatable issue cannot be brought to tax in the proceedings under Section 154. Without prejudice to the above contention it is submitted that method of calculation of book profit under Section 115J is incorrect as the previous year losses have been ignored. Considering the above and any other submissions that may be urged at the time of hearing the appeal may be allowed." 2. Assessment in this case was originally completed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Act, by his order dt. 30th Dec., 1991. Income computed under that order was Rs. 50,43,630. Income has been thus ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2001)(74)ECC224
This is an application for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 7,74,332 and the penalty of Rs. 75,000. The question involved is about claiming of the modvat in respect of the inputs procured from 100% EOU (E.O.unit). The appellate authority and the adjudicating authority had held credit is on the basis of duty is paid by the EOU. Which should be the basis of calculation in respect of Modvat in terms of Section 12 of the Customs Act? This is because the supplier of the raw material was an EOU. The matter is not res integra. Larger Bench decision in the case of Vikram lspat v. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai 2000 (20) ELT 800 (Tribunal-LB) has been given in favour of the assessee where the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Tribunal in its second judgment in the case of Commissioner v. Weston Electronics Ltd. 1997 (95) ELT 624. In view thereof there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the appellants. I therefore waive payment of the duty and penalty imposed and stay the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(74)ECC583
1. When the matter was called, Sri G. Sree Kumar Menon, SDR prays for adjournment on the ground that the Revenue is engaging Senior Counsel in the matter.2. In this case, high amount of Revenue is involved and in the impugned order duty of over Rs. 3.00 crores had been demanded from M/s. VST Industries Ltd. and mandatory penalty of an equal amount of Rs. 3.00 crores had been imposed, in addition, interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act had been demanded. Under the Tribunal's stay order No. 536/2000 dated 6.7.2000 full waiver of the pre-deposit had been given and in view of the heavy stakes, the matter was fixed for regular hearing on 23.10.2000.3. We find that on 23.10.2000, the Bench noted as per the Order Sheet as under: Heard counsel fully. DR Sri S. Kannan mentions that he has just receiving instructions that the department is engaging the services of the Addl. Solicitor General of India in the matter. Memo is also filed. Hence, seeks adjournment by eight weeks. Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(129)ELT57TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed against the common order in original dated 30.11.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, by the appellants vide which he ordered seizure of goods involving duty of 2,27,286/- with option to get the same redeem on payment of Rs.4,00,000/- ; and imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules on appellant No.(1) and also imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- on appellant No (2) under Rule 209A of the Rules.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of copper wire bars/ingots, strips copper wire of refined copper etc.They had been availing modvat facility under Rule 57-A for the Rules. On 8.12.96 surprise raid was conducted on their factory premises by the Central Excise Officers(Preventive) and Shri R.C. Prasad (appellant No.2), authorised signatory of the firm of appellant No. (1) was present at that time in the factory. After scrutiny of the record and physical stock checking of the finished goods as well as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2001)(131)ELT117TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order No. 2086/CE/CHD/99 dt. 30-11-99, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the Modvat Credit to M/s Rine Engineering (P) Ltd on the strength of unauthenticated invoice and in respect of angles, channels etc., for not submitting the proof of their use in the manufacture of final product.2. Shri H.R.Bheema Shankar, Ld. SDR., submitted that the credit cannot be availed of on the basis of unauthenticated invoice issued by second stage dealer; that the Respondents had not adduced any evidence to their claim that Channels, angles, rounds, bars & rods were melted alongwith ferrous waste and scrap to manufacture castings; that these are also not inputs under the definition of Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules.3. Countering the arguments, shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Respondents had duly declared channels, angles, rods, bars and rounds in their Modvat Declarations dt. 20-2-1996 and 18-6-98; that they were us...
Tag this Judgment!