1998 (4) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ......
........... t arise for consideration in the other case. 4. emsp We are, prima facie of the opinion that the additional discount satisfies the requirements of Section 4(4)(d) of the Act and such discount is admissible whether or not all buyers availed the benefit thereof by satisfying the condition and prima facie the argument based on classification of buyers would not apply. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount relating to additional trade discount. 5. emsp According to the appellant, around Rs. 21.83 lakhs out of demand relates to secondary packing, though this aspect is not referred to in the order of the first appeal. The contention is that the present case does not satisfy the test laid down in MRF case. In the circumstances we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 lakh within two months and report compliance on or before by 30-6-1998. On such deposit the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount shall stand waived. Call on 6-7-1998.
1998 (4) TMI 279 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI
IN RE: TECHNO-FUTURA INTERNATIONAL LTD. CHENNAI
........... (84) E.L.T. 151 (Tribunal). 4. emsp I have carefully considered the Appeal. I find that the charge against the appellants is that they have filed an incomplete declaration, that is to say, that they have given generic heading. They have not specifically written Copper Strips and Copper Foils. There are number of decisions wherein the Appellate Forums have held that credit should not be denied merely because the description was in general and not specific. The case laws relied upon by the Advocate also support this view. The fact remains that they have filed the necessary declaration, in a generic form. I have already decided several cases holding that much declarations can be accepted and Modvat credit extended basing on the several decisions of CEGAT. Following the same. I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with directions to the Assistant Commissioner to extend the credit after verification. Since the appeal is allowed on merits, the penalty is also vacated.
1998 (4) TMI 278 - CEGAT, MADRAS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE Versus SELLAMMAL SPINNERS
SSI Exemption - Specified goods ......
........... quo which cannot logically/legally enter the foray of ldquo first clearances of specified goods rdquo . He further held that the notification exempts specified goods cleared for home consumption on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year in the case of first clearance of specified goods upto an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon is the correct Tariff Notification. 7. emsp Ld. SDR submits that the Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. case is distinguishable, this is not acceptable to the Bench in view of the fact this Bench has already distinguished the said submission in the case of CCE v. Sri Kumaran Spinners case. 8. emsp We agree with the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and we clearly hold that the respondent rsquo s claim for seeking clearance of value from the date of notification is fully justified and in that view of the matter we do not see any merit in this appeal and hence same is rejected.
1998 (4) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Versus PUSHFAB INDUSTRIES
SSI exemption ......
........... order upto a limit of Rs. 30 lakhs as indicated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. If within the first clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs, any goods are cleared on payment of duty, the same cannot be excluded from reckoning.The limit of Rs. 75 lakhs is on reckoning the first clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs on full exemption under Clause (a) and succeeding clearances of Rs. 45 lakhs under Clause (b) of the notification on partial exemption. If out of the first clearances upto Rs. 75 lakhs, any goods have been cleared on payment of duty, the same cannot be excluded from the reckoning. In the light of what we have indicated above, the view taken in the impugned orders in Appeal E/289/90, E/100/91 and E/4423/94 is correct and the view taken in Appeal E/524/91 and E/530/91 is erroneous. 8. emsp Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision which covers the case in favour of the respondents, we find no merit in the present appeal filed by the Revenue. 9. emsp The appeal is as a result dismissed.
1998 (4) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
P. AHUJA & SONS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH
SSI Exemption ......
........... case of the same appellant for the earlier period in identical cases, he showed that the Collector had dropped the demand. Shri D.S. Negi on the other hand submits that a notification has to be literally interpreted and once an assessee has chosen a particular provision, he is bound by the results. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made. It is correct that a notification has to be interpreted strictly but where such strict interpretation leads to an absurd result, that interpretation must be avoided. It is not doubted here that the assessee rsquo s clearances were within the limits prescribed for duty free clearances. The reasons for his having paid duty without having taken any Modvat credit are not on record. But whatever was the reason, there is no propriety in imposing the demand for differential duty calculated on the tariff rate and duty paid by him. We find no cause to uphold the impugned order. The appeal is allowed. Consequential relief is ordered.
1998 (4) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus RK. MACHINE TOOLS LTD.
Demand - Destruction during sample testing ......
........... should have actually been used in the tanks the demand for duty cannot sustain. The notification speaks of parts ldquo intended for use rdquo . The Supreme Court in their judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 314 (S.C.) have interpreted this phrase. Even, otherwise, there was no doubt that the intention behind their clearance was for use in the battle tanks alone since the goods have no alternative use. As regards destruction during testing. We observe, that the language of Rule 192 itself acknowledge and permits such loss during ldquo handling rdquo which phrase is of wide import and can cover testing also. 7. emsp We, thus, find that the goods cleared under this notification which were destroyed during sample testing in the factory of recipient did not attract any duty. On this ground we do not feel it necessary to restore the order of the Assistant Collector. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1998 (4) TMI 271 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
ICI (INDIA) LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-II
Classification of goods ......
........... rsquo as such is quite different and the assessee had mis-declared the composition before the AC concerned inasmuch as the complete composition of the material was not disclosed. In the face of this suppression, it is felt that there is enough justification for invoking Section 11A proviso. rdquo 9. emsp This finding of adjudicating authority is totally against the facts. There is difference between Duco Putty and Putty as we have already held above. The adjudicating authority has relied upon the dilution of Putty being paints. But as found above, dilution of Putty cannot be considered to be Putty and therefore, the finding of mis-declaration attributed to the appellants is not sustainable. Hence, we set aside the demand of duty as barred by time as well. In view of the above finding, there is no question of imposition of any penalty. Therefore, the penalty imposed is also set aside. 10. emsp In short, the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants herein.
1998 (4) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
GEEP INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD
........... 4) E.L.T.13 (S.C.) . 8. emsp In Indian Explosives Ltd. 1989 (40) E.L.T. 190 (Tribunal) , the Tribunal held that deduction on account of taxes should be allowed on average basis, if allocation on actual basis is either impractical or too cumbersome. In Kerala Electric Lamp Ltd. 1988 (33) E.L.T. 771 (Tribunal) the Tribunal held that equalised octroi is admissible for deduction. The decision of the Supreme Court in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. would clearly indicate that equalised turnover tax and octroi would be admissible for deduction. Question of imposing a ceiling on the basis of the actuals would not arise in such a case provided of course the genuineness of the equalised amount is accepted. In the present case the genuineness is not disputed. 9. emsp The demand in this case is on the total amount of equalised turnover tax and octroi deducted from the assessable value by the assessee. This is not sustainable. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
1998 (4) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CENTURY PULP & PAPER Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT
Modvat - Capital goods ......
........... sustain the claim that the goods were directly shipped from the manufacturer rsquo s factory to the present appellants. This could easily be established by citing transport documents such as lorry receipt. This has not been done in the lower proceedings. Ld. Advocate submits that this aspect may also be included in the remand. I am not to accept his plea since it is obvious that the material particulars are not available with the assessees. The invoice by itself does not show in whom the ownership vested. In the absence of a second invoice of the consignee, it has correctly been said that the documents are not sufficient to give the credit to the assessee. 9. emsp To sum up, I find that the (1) hydraulic truck unloader are eligible for credit under Rule 57Q (2) walkway platform ladder railing as also level guages and switches are not so eligible and (3) as regards load cells are concerned, the proceedings are remitted back to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration.
1998 (4) TMI 267 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
CHLORIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-II
........... process and both are used in the manufacture of storage battery plates. The Supreme Court in the Woodcrafts case, referred to supra, has held that HSN Explanatory Notes are binding in character and can be relied upon for the purposes of interpretation of Tariff under Central Excise Tariff Act. 1985. Shri N. Mookherjee rsquo s contention that Chapter Note (2) to Chapter 39 is not present in HSN is factually incorrect inasmuch as the same Chapter Note (2) its also available under Chapter 38 of Explanatory Note. Though there cannot be any legal dispute as regards Rules 3(a) and (b) of the Rules of Interpretation, we find that the same are not applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the appellants rsquo product being a specially prepared mixture, cannot be said to be covered by a specific Entry of 2824.00. 11. emsp In view of our discussions above, we hold that Lead Sub Oxide (Grey) is properly classified under Chapter 3823.00. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
1998 (4) TMI 266 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR Versus SAIL
Melted iron - Not marketable and hence not excisable - Splash plates is exempted product vide Notification No. 175/88-C.E. ......
........... y of production in the manufacture of steel ingots and melted either during or after such use in the same factory. We find from a reading of the said Notification that the same specifically exempts splash plates. As such the benefit under Notification 217/86 cannot be extended to the uncoated non-alloy plates exceeding 5 mm in thickness or to the other inputs used in the manufacture of splash plates inasmuch as there is the condition in Notification No. 217/86 that the final product should not be exempted from payment of duty. As the final product that is splash plates are exempted, the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 would not be available to the respondents. Accordingly we set aside this portion of the Collector (Appeals) order which deals with the exemption to the inputs used in the manufacture of splash plates and restore the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Appeal disposed of in above manner by modifying the impugned order as indicated in the preceding paragraphs.
1998 (4) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
METAL ROD PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ......
........... derstood when the Modvat credit can be taken on the endorsed gate passes why the same benefit could not be granted on the endorsed bill of entry. There is absolutely no logic for denying such credit on the endorsed bill of entry. The provisions of Rule 57G(2) only require the inputs to be accompanied by duty paying documents and that inputs are duty paid is not a matter in dispute. Hence the requirements of Rule 57G(2) stand duly complied with. 4. emsp Learned DR reiterated the department rsquo s view point as contained in the impugned orders. 5. emsp I have considered the above submissions. I observe that learned Counsel rsquo s contentions have a lot of force. That apart, the issue stands settled now by a catena of orders of this Tribunal including the order in the case of Shri Krishna Strips Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi cited by the learned Counsel. Respectfully following the ratio thereof, the appeal is allowed, as already announced in the open Court.
1998 (4) TMI 263 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
COMMR. OF C. EX., SHILLONG Versus ARUNACHAL PLYWOOD INDUS. LTD.
........... ng wheel in the case of Batliboy Co. Ltd. reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 307 (Tribunal) 1998 (24) RLT 331 and in respect of abrasive grinding belt in the case of Anil Steel Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1997 (20) RLT 882 (Tribunal) . 4. emsp I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Ld. advocate on behalf of the respondents has cited a number of decisions in which coated abrasive paper has been held to be an input under Rule 57A for the purpose of availing the Modvat credit. It is also observe that in Arunachal Forest lsquo s case referred to above, it was observed by the Tribunal that coated abrasive paper is not known in the market as a tool and it is certainly used in relation to the manufacture of the final product. Following the ratio of this decision which had relied upon the decision in the case of Jayshree Timber, the Modvat credit in respect of coated abrasive paper is available under Rule 57A. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
1998 (4) TMI 262 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
BOMBAY FORGINGS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-I
........... r meaning beyond the concept of headings/sub-headings of the Tariff. This decision of the Tribunal was followed subsequently in the case of Ranbaxy, Chandigarh - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 400 (Tribunal) and also by this Bench in its order in the case of TELCO Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 439 (Tribunal) 1997 (73) ECR 301 (Tribunal). In the light of the ratio of the above decisions in the present case also it has been shown before us that the unmachined forgings under the same sub-heading 7307.00 of CETA. Therefore the present case is fully covered by the precedent decisions of the Tribunal and accordingly we hold that the appellants are entitled under Rule 57F(3) to utilise credit earned on the inputs on the machined flanges exported under bond for the clearances for home consumption on payment of duty of unmachined flange falling under the same sub-heading of CETA. The Appeals are allowed. The appellants will be entitled to consequential relief as per law.
1998 (4) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
RUBY MILLS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-I
........... as a separate commodity. From the expression ldquo other than acrylic fiber rdquo it was indicated that acrylic fiber was a synthetic staple fiber of non-cellulosic origin but the same was excluded for the purpose of the above category of spun yarn. Similarly in the case of Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (57) E.L.T. 674 (Cal.), the matter related to the new Central Excise Tariff where under Heading No. 54.04 the yarn in which acrylic or mode acrylic staple fiber pre-dominated by weight. We are not concerned with the interpretation of such a Tariff Entry. We find that the Tariff Entry under the Central Excise Tariff under Item No. 18III was categorical and the Explanation III was not relevant as the fibers i.e. acrylic fibers and viscose fibers were not equal in weight. 10. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we do find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.