1998 (8) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA
Modvat - Duty paying documents ......
........... G. 6. emsp Dangers, if any, to revenue is not significantly greater from the gate passes endorsed twice, than from gate passes endorsed thrice. The only possible danger that the Departmental Representative points out is that each time a gate pass is endorsed there is a possibility that endorsing party might have taken credit. This danger can be avoided if it could be shown that the credit has not been taken on gate passes by any of the party who endorsed. On this being put to the representative of the appellant, he states that he would be able to produce evidence from each of the party who endorsed gate passes that they have not taken credit. This, in my view, would serve as satisfactory evidence particularly when I leave it to the Department for further enquiry as it deem fit. 7. emsp Accordingly appeal is allowed. Impugned order set aside. Commissioner shall, after giving three months time to the appellant to produce this evidence, adjudicate on this issue according to law.
1998 (8) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SHRI RAM HONDA POWER EQUIPMENT CO. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MEERUT
........... quo s dealers anywhere in the country. Thus, though one dealer might have to repair goods sold by another dealer and incur costs in that regard, he also had the benefit of having the goods he sold repairable throughout the country. The provision as to after-sales-service, therefore, benefitted not only the appellant it was a provision of mutual benefits. 4. emsp In view of the above decisions, Sh. K. Srivastava, Ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings given by the authorities below. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the issues involved in this case have already been covered by the aforesaid decisions as it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants. Following the ratio, we accept the contention of the party on this issue and accordingly appeal is allowed. In view of this, we do not feel it necessary to go into the other issues raised by both the sides. Ordered accordingly.
1998 (8) TMI 252 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT
Modvat on capital goods ......
........... ) of the Explanation is generating set rsquo , Though generator is a distinct item for the purpose of classification but a generator set and generating set appeared to be if not identical, similar item and since generating set qualifies for Modvat credit as capital goods in terms of Clause (c) of the Explanation to Rule 57Q, we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible and item described as generator set. 6. emsp In so far as spare parts are concerned, we find that the spare parts are not covered by Clause (c) of the Explanation. We agree with the contention of the ld. DR that the spare parts permissible for Modvat credit as capital goods in terms of Clause (b) of the Explanation pertain only to the spare parts of the machines etc., described in Clause (a) of the explanation. Thus, no Modvat credit will be admissible on spare parts of generator set during the material period. The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1998 (8) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
COMMR. OF CENTRAL EX. & CUS., SURAT Versus DINCOTEX PRIVATE LTD.
Confiscation of goods ......
........... visions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 173G were contravened by not entering the grey fabrics in the relevant record is not denied. However, we do not see how it follows from this the goods liable to confiscation. The reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) that the appellant is not a manufacturer of grey fabrics of which no duty is payable and therefore the provision of Rule 173Q will not apply cannot be found fault with. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
1998 (8) TMI 249 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI-I
IN RE: MANDHANA INDUSTRIES LTD.
Fabrics - benefit to Notification No. 83/95-C.E. is available.
........... Notification No. 83/95 which was issued on subsequently i.e. on 24-4-1995. Since the period in applicants case is May, 1995 to Sept., 1995 i.e. after issuance of Notification No. 83/95, dated 24-4-1995. They are very much entitled for the same. The question regarding claiming of the same, there are plethora of decisions, wherein it is held that even it is not claimed, if otherwise admissible, the benefit should not be denied. I have also seen the sample declarations filed under Rule 173B along with price declarations about the disputed products, Appellants have specifically mentioned on the same that subjected goods are received for calendering process only. 6. emsp Apart department has neither in show cause notice nor in the impugned order has proved that the fabrics under disputes had also undergone the processes other than calendering process as claimed by the appellants. 7. emsp In view of the above, set aside the Assistant Commissioner rsquo s order and allow the appeal.
1998 (8) TMI 248 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS Versus ASIAN PAINTS (I) LTD.
........... not used in the manufacture of final products of the assessee. 2. emsp The appeal does not, touch upon the reasoning in the order of Collector (Appeals) that the goods in dispute were used to render the final product marketable which is an essential feature of manufacture. It is also to be noted that credit is available on inputs which is used in, in relation to the manufacture of the final product. There is no claim that the paint could be sold, or sold in unpainted drums. The paint therefore has rightly been held to be an input. 3. emsp The appeal is dismissed.
1998 (8) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR Versus AKSH INDIA LTD.
Modvat on capital goods ......
........... . I do not find anything on record to disturb the findings of the appellate authority. I find that the Revenue in the grounds of appeal had referred to the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 84, where the Tribunal had held that the definition of capital goods in Rule 57Q was restricted and related to the goods used for production, processing and for bringing out any change in any substance for the manufacture of the final products. I find that as discussed by the appellate authority, the final products in this case could not be obtained without the use of the water process generator which played an important role in finishing the optical fibre glass in this case. 7. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, I do not find any material on record to disturb the findings of fact of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
1998 (8) TMI 245 - CEGAT, MADRAS
COLLECTOR OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus SWASTIK COATERS PVT. LTD.
Demand - Established practice - Revision/Review ......
........... nction of the tariff heading under 52.06 and those under Heading 59.01 in terms of page 814 of HSN. Ld. Collector in the impugned order has dealt in the present case that the item is merely dyed starch and coated with china clay and stiffness of the cloth is lost, when it is dipped in water and it cannot be used as outer covers of books to fall under Chapter 59.01 and it is merely used for tapes for binding the two edges of the books. In view of the clear distinction drawn by the Collector in respect of the item and in terms of the Tariff Heading under 52.01 in the context of page 814 of the HSN, we do not find any infirmity order and therefore, the judgment in the case of Bhor Industries classifying the goods used as outer covers is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, for the reasons given in the order, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Revenue appeal. 10. emsp The cross objection is also disposed of accordingly.
1998 (8) TMI 244 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
MRF LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA
Modvat - Waste/Scrap ......
........... ing tyres in appellants factory and no part of it is cleared elsewhere. The departmental representative supports the impugned order. 3. emsp The contention of the appellant has to be accepted. Sub-rule (1) of Section 57D takes into its scope waste refuse or by product, arising ldquo during manufacture of final product rdquo . The rubberised fabric was manufactured by the appellant solely in order to make the tyres. The output therefore, arise during manufacture of tyres, the final product. The provision 57D will apply and credit could not be denied of its duty paid as its inputs could contained in the scrap. 4. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
1998 (8) TMI 243 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD
Modvat - Duty paying documents ......
........... d it does not bear any endorsement by the consignee. No doubt, in the facts of the case some evidence has been bought stating that the manufacturer has stated that the goods have been diverted to the appellant herein. However, it has to be stated that unless there is evidence in the form of duty paying documents, viz. gate passes which was prevalent at that time, Modvat credit cannot be claimed. Hence, in my view the orders passed by two authorities below are absolutely correct. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
1998 (8) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COLLECTOR OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus AMRIT PAPER MILLS CO. LTD.
Reference to High Court - Modvat ......
........... decison already stands referred to the High Court vide Tribunal rsquo s Order No. A/83-85/96 dated 31-10-1996 in the case of Union Carbide of India? rdquo 4. emsp Shri D.K. Nair, ld. DR who appeared for the appellant Commissioner prayed for reference of the matter to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in view of the Tribunal rsquo s earlier orders referring the matter to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. 5. emsp Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate for the respondent left it to the discretion of the Bench. 6. emsp Considered. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has decided to refer the said question of law to the Hon rsquo ble High Court, in the two instances referred to by the Commissioner and following the said precedent, we accede to prayer made in the Reference Application for referring the question formulated in the said Reference Application to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 7. emsp Registry shall take further action in the matter in terms of the above.
1998 (8) TMI 240 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
DB. SHAH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE
........... bus at Kolhapur. Clearly, the acquisition of silver was in Bombay, which is a specified area, and its transport from there to Kolhapur was not covered by prescribed document under Chapter IV-B. The confiscation and penalty on the appellant is ordered. 2. emsp On a careful consideration of the submission, it is seen that the silver was admittedly acquired in Bombay, which is a specified area and as such its acquisition will be covered by provisions of Chapter IV-A. Admittedly, there is no valid document as prescribed under Chapter IV-B for its transport. In such a view of the matter, the confiscation and penalty is correct in law. But considering the relatively small quantity involved, we are of the view that the absolute confiscation of the silver is harsh and the appellants can be given the option to redeem on a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of confiscation. The penalty on the appellant is also set aside in the circumstances of the case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1998 (8) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
PARTAP ELECTRICALS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD
SSI Exemption - Brand name ......
........... uo s decision in Model Soap Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I, reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 622 (Tribunal) 1998 (24) RLT 628, was given taking into account the Board rsquo s circular dated 27-10-1994. 2. emsp Heard Shri Saran, learned SDR who submits that the case may be remanded for reconsideration in the light of the Board rsquo s circulars as the circulars are not found to be considered by the lower authorities. 3. emsp We have gone through the records of the case and have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We agree with the learned SDR that the matter is required to be reconsidered by the lower authorities as they have not taken into account the relevant circulars of the Board. The case is, accordingly, remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision after taking into account the relevant circulars of the Board and the decision of the CEGAT after giving the appellant an opportunity to present their case. Ordered accordingly.
1998 (8) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MADRAS
TRITON SYNTHETIC FIBRES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE
........... have accepted the plea of appellants for classification only under Chapter 59. The article is known as plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics falling under Chapter 39 and department does not produced any evidence to show that the item is only plates, sheets, film, foil and strip of plastics for classifying under Chapter Heading 39.21 and therefore the classification allowed requires to be rejected. 9. emsp Further, we observe that Chemical Examiner has expressed his opinion on classification which cannot be accepted as the Chemical Examiner is only to state this expert opinion and not to suggest the classification under any particular heading. Therefore, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the items in issue are rightly classifiable only under Chapter Heading 59.03 and in the respective sub-headings as claimed by appellants. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
1998 (8) TMI 237 - CEGAT, MADRAS
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE Versus MAFATLAL PLYWOOD IND. LTD.
........... s heading only and not in a general Heading under 85.46 which is for electrical insulator for any material. The item is only in the form of boards, plates, strips, battens, yoke plates, etc. which satisfy the description given in 44.09 and hence by applying the Note 1 and Note 3(a) of Interpretative Rules, the appropriate Heading being 44.09 is required to be preferred to Heading 85.46. It is also seen in the case of C.C.E. v. Western India Plywood Ltd., the item densified wood used in electrical insulation purpose has been held to be classifiable under 44.09 and the classification under Heading 85.46 has been ruled out. This judgment is directly applicable to the facts of this case and we notice that the item is identical. We are not persuaded to take a different view from the view already expressed by the Tribunal in the cited case. In that view of the matter, the appeal of Revenue is required to be accepted by setting aside the impugned order, which is ordered accordingly.