Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC123
2. As the appeal can be disposed off today, we waive the requirement of pre deposit.3. The appellants received HR/CR Coils of iron and steel and cutting/slitting the same into sheets and strips on behalf of M/s. SAIL and supplied to the customers of M/s. SAIL on payment of job charges.For the impugned period, they have taken credit of the impugned duty and paid duty on the sheets. Boards circular dated 2/3/05 clarified that such cutting and slitting of HR/CR coils into sheets does not amount to manufacture following Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order dated 21/11/2003 against which the Department's appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned period during which the appellants continued to take credit and pay duty on the sheets is from the date of the circular till 28/2/2006 out of ignorance of the circular.4. The Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants states that since duty paid on the sheets is much more than the credit taken, the appellants are not required to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2008)9STR97
1. Heard both sides. The appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking.Since, no COD (Committee on Disputes) clearance was obtained earlier, the appeal was dismissed. In the mean time, the COD clearance has been obtained and hence the order of dismissal dated 10.11.04 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. The MA for ROA (Restoration of Appeal) is allowed.2. The appellants have also filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for Condonation of Delay (COD). We find that the verification clause in the appeal memorandum, EA-3 form has been signed on 15^th July, 2004, which is much after the stated date of filing the appeal. The ld. Sr.Advocate explains that initially only one copy of the appeal was filed and upon the defects being pointed out, the appellants have filed four copies of the appeal which seems to be a reason why the subsequent date has been mentioned in the copies of the appeal filed subsequently. We find that there is a few days delay in filing the appeal. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC154
1. Heard both sides. We dispense with the requirements of predeposits and proceed to hear the appeals finally.This appeal involves several invoices. As regards Invoice Nos. 4010, 4027 & other 8 Invoices form Durgapur Chemicals Limited and 20 Invoices from Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Limited the ld. Advocate fairly states that the credit has been denied on the ground that the same were taken after six months from the dates of related Invoices. He also states that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore appellants have no case on merits and hence he is not pressing the appeal in regard to these invoices. In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision cited above, we hold that the credits in respect of these invoices have been rightly denied to the appellants. In regard to Invoice No. 1366, we find that the credit has been denied as the time and date of removal was not mentioned in the invoices to ascertain whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ranchi
Reported in : (2007)(121)ECC97
2. The appellants use zinc in their galvanizing line for galvanizing steel products. This is done by putting steel products in zinc bath.The Ld. Counsel for the appellants Shri S.P. Mazumder states that three test reports relied on by the Department relates to samples taken from the zinc bath for determining the zinc percentage for the purpose of replenishing the bath with zinc ingots to maintain high concentration of zinc. The appellants have all along maintained that the three samples tested by the lab., the reports of which have been relied on by the Department did not relate to the zinc dross which is obtained in the process of galvanizing and dumped outside for subsequent sale to the buyers. He states that it is natural that the samples tested from the zinc bath would have high purity of zinc and the same is different from the zinc dross which is classifiable under Heading 26.19. The Ld.Advocate also states that the appellants were not required to pay duty on such dross in view o...
Tag this Judgment!