Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2008)(124)ECC16
1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) only to the extent that it rejects the contention of the appellant that the show cause notice was time barred. It is made clear, at the very outset, by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant does not challenge the impugned order on the question of classification of the goods in question, namely, ZYGLO-ZB-4B and 9CZ.2. The appellants were manufacturers of non-destructive testing equipment and consumables. According to the Revenue, they were having a godown at shed No. 31 APIIC, Phase-II, IDA, Pashyamylaram, in Medak District. These premises were not registered nor declared with the Central Excise Department. The appellants were re-packing certain chemicals in the said premises. The chemicals, namely, ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED concentrate were received in bulk packing of 205 litre of drums and these were re-packed into small packs of 1 kg. and cleared as 'trading goods' without payment of duty. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2008)(124)ECC12
1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal No.18/05(V-II) CE dated 26.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals).2. We have heard the learned SDR, None appeared for the Respondents.The issue involves Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1007 by which the Government has notified certain inputs for the purpose of credit of duty under modvat scheme. The said notification is reproduced below: Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 is extracted thereunder for ready reference: Iron and steel-Goods notified for purposes of credit of duty under Modvat In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (6) of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby declares the following inputs and the final products falling within the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5) of 1986) namely: Inputs: Hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel falling under sub-headings Nos. 7211.11.7211.19, 7211.30, 7211.52, 7211.5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
1. The Revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner made on 31.3.2004 only to the limited extent to which the Commissioner has ordered that the value of a co-processor by its nature and use was not liable to be included in the value of the computer system. A direction has been given under the impugned order by the Commissioner to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner to re-examine the record and identify the peripherals in the light of the discussion contained in the order and exclude them from the list of items which constitute the computer systems. The effect of the said direction read with the findings in paragraph 10 of the order in the context of co-processor holding that it was distinct from the main processor and that it performs additional functions or assists the main processor and that the most common type of co-processor is numeric or math co-processor, was that its value was not liable to be included by virtue of the nature of its use.2. The learned Authorized Rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
1. The revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), by which he has held that the respondents herein are eligible to the benefit of exemption from payment of duty on "cover paper" cleared to M/s. Nikhil Offset for supply to UNICEF project, in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.95. According to the revenue since the notification provided that before clearance of the goods to United Nations or an international organisation for their official use or for supply to the projects financed by the UN or an international organisation and approved by the Government of India, the manufacturer should produce before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, a certificate from the UN or an international organisation regarding the fact that the goods are intended for official use by UN or an international organisation or for supply to the project as above, the certificate should have been in the name of the respondents themselves and certificate in favour of Nikhi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
1. The issue arising for consideration is whether hydrochloric acid and wetnol used for cleaning of machinery in the appellant's factory are eligible for modvat credit. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri K.R. Natarajan points out that the issue is no more res integra inasmuch as Tribunal has held that items used for cleaning purposes are eligible for modvat credit. He has in this connection referred to the decision of this Tribunal in Triveni Engg. Industries Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Meerut - 1999 (105) ELT 427 (T) wherein the Tribunal held that soda ash and caustic soda used for cleaning of various machinery in manufacture of sugar are eligible for modvat credit under Rule 57A, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan State Banganagar Sugar Mills vs.C.C.E., Jaipur - 1999 (III) ELT 682 wherein the Tribunal held that caustic soda flakes used for descaling of brass tubes are admissible for modvat credit and decision of the Tribunal in the case of UP State Sugar Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
1. The appellants manufacture aerated waters. They sought different assessable values in respect of goods sold ex-factory, and goods sold to adjoining states. This claim has been rejected under the impugned orders on the ground that once ex-factory prices are available, there is no requirement to approve different prices for different buyers. The order also held that whole-sale dealers in the state of manufacture and adjoining states did not constitute two different classes of dealers.2. As against the above, the contention of the appellant is that on account of various factors prices vary from area to area and it is permissible to treat dealers in different geographical areas as different class of buyers. The assessee has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shriram Foods & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs.C.C.E. Delhi [1996 (85) ELT 34 (Trib)], Gora Malhari Ram Ltd. Vs.Collector of Central Excise, Delhi [1994 (69) ELT 269 (Trib.) ect. in support of their contention.3. We ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
1. This appeal is directed against rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 12,52,542/-. The impugned order states as under: "6. The short question involved in the instant appeal is whether the payment of interest of Rs. 12,52,542/- for the period from 1.4.90 to 27.9.96 on the duties which became payable from 1.4.90 onwards and which were in fact paid as late as on 1.9.97 is in consonance with the Order-in-Original No. CE 10/97 (I) dated 25.9.97 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad I Commissionerate and whether the appellants are entitled to the refund of such interest. 7. The appellants have contended that the Order in Original No. C. EX. 10/97 (I) dated 25.9.97 of the Commissioner can only be interpreted as charging interest from 28.9.96 and not retrospectively for the period from 28.9.96. This is not acceptable. No such interpretation can be put to the Commissioner's Order when it does not say so. The duties, which were legally due for payment f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is whether the respondents have to be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.93, as amended as they are using the brand name and logo of M/s. Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. (ITL) on their product.2. The respondents are manufacturers of automatic electrical stablizers falling under Chapter sub-heading 9032.80. They were availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 in respect of their goods. Show cause notice dated 13.11.96 was issued proposing to deny them the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for the reason mentioned above. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand denying the benefit of Notification No.1/93. On appeal by the assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order passed by the adjudicating authority following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Weigand India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi 1997 (94) ELT 124 (T). The above order is under challenge before us at the instance of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
1. In this appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenge is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17.9.2000. The only issue to be considered here is whether rentals on crates and glass bottled collected by the appellant can be allowed as deduction from the wholesale price for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value as per the provisions contained under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.2. The original authority as well as the appellate authority rejected the claim of the Revenue following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijaywada Bottling Co. Vs. CCE 1993(63) ELT 526. It was found that the amount collected by the assessee towards rental was separately accounted for in the ledgers. On comparison with the similar assessees, it was found that the amount claimed by the assessee was just and reasonable.3. We find that the view taken in the order impugned is in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
1. The dispute is about inclusion of a part of the cost recovered towards transport. It is being pointed out by the Revenue that the amount realized from the buyers towards transport was more than the actual cost incurred on the transport. Based on this, it is their contention that the excess amount realized was liable to form part of the assessable value.2. The dispute is about realization prior to the year 2000. Perused the records and heard both sides. It is well settled ( Indian Oxygen vs.CC, Vishakapatnam, 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-88-SC-CX) that sale of goods and transport are separate activities and realization made towards transport has no bearing on the sale price of the goods and, therefore, cannot have only relevance for the determination of the assessable value of the goods....
Tag this Judgment!