2000 (10) TMI 779 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SUBURBAN INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, BHUBANESWAR
........... by ERB directed the appellant to execute a personal bond, which has since been executed by them and is alive today. The objection raised by the learned JDR at Delhi that the signature of the Superintendent is appearing in column of witnesses whereas the same should have appeared below the column required to be signed by the witnesses is only a technical procedural objection inasmuch as admittedly, the Supdt. has signed the bond and the Revenue has accepted the same. 3. emsp We agree with the above contention of the learned Advocate and the appeal is restored to its original number.
2000 (10) TMI 778 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
FENNER (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. CX., MADURAI
Demand - Limitation - Valuation ......
........... iscount as availed has to be granted to them if eligible as per section 4(4)(d)(ii). Since the matter is being remanded to the Commissioner for re-determination of the quantum of duty demandable, we direct the Commissioner to keep in mind this submission when he finalises the demand de novo. 11. emsp In view of our finding above we set aside the order of penalty and direct that the question of imposition of penalty and its quantum should be re-determined in the facts of this case. Hence, we leave the question of penalty open including its leviability. 12. emsp In view of our findings above, we remand the case back to the Commissioner to re-adjudicate the matter after offering personal hearing to the appellants and re-determine the quantum of duty and penalty. 13. emsp In view of our above, the order on M/s. BMF Beltings Ltd. is also set aside and remanded back to decide the issue afresh after the issue in the case of FIL is determined. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
2000 (10) TMI 777 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BHUBANESWAR Versus JAYASHREE CHEMICALS LTD.
Reference to High Court - Modvat ......
........... nsumed in the process of manufacture is not an input under Rule 57(A) of the Central Excise Rules? rdquo On receipt of the above order from the Hon rsquo ble High Court, Revenue was directed to prepare the statement of facts. The Learned SDR Shri V.K. Chaturvedi appearing for the Revenue submits the statement of facts. Accordingly, registry is directed to annexue the said statement of facts with this order and forward the same along with other relevant papers to the Hon rsquo ble High Court.
2000 (10) TMI 774 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SWIL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-IV
Modvat on capital goods ......
........... The second reason for denying of Modvat credit in respect of cam profile is that the same has not been declared as an independent item by name. The appellant rsquo s contention is that cam profile is a part of Dobby which has been declared by them. Even in the duty paying documents cam profile has been shown as Dobby in the bracket and as such contends the learned Consultant that there was no justification for denying the benefit of Modvat credit. 3. emsp I have also heard the learned JDR. I fully agree with the submissions made by the learned Consultant that delay in filing the declaration by one day should not be made the ground for denying the credit of duty paid capital goods which was otherwise available to the assessee. Similarly, I find that cam profile is a part of Dobby which was also declared in the duty paying document. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
2000 (10) TMI 773 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
MONTARI INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH
........... nal and allowed the appeal of the Department. 3. emsp The present appeal is against the afore-stated order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, JDR for the Respondents. The ld. Advocate for the appellants has relied on the ratio of the following decided cases, in which the Modvat credit is held to be admissible on the returned goods (i) CCE v. Meerut Tin Manufacturing Co. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 290 (T-LB) 2000 (39) RLT 197 (CEGAT-L.B) (ii) CCE, Meerut v. M/s. Bhushan Steel and Strips - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 293 (T-LB) 2000 (39) RLT 200 (CEGAT-L.B.), and (iii) M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 711 (T-LB) 2000 (38) RLT 986 (CEGAT-L.B.) 3. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions made before me, it is observed that the facts of the present appeal are fully covered by the ratio of the above cited decisions. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential belief, if any.
2000 (10) TMI 771 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS (APPEALS)
IN RE: LITAKA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
........... this, I do not have to see whether it figures in the expanded list of items under CH 30.05 in terms of Chapter note 3. In fact I observe that this Chapter note 3 has been lifted from chapter note 4 of Ch 30 of HSN. Chapter note 4 of HSN deals with CH 30.06 which is equivalent to our tariff CH 30.05. The CH 30.06 of HSN does not contain any sub-heading for ORS and that is the reason why ORS does not figure in the list of items described in Chapter Note 4 of Ch 30 of HSN. In our tariff, we introduced ORS under CSH 3005.30 in the budget for 1997-98. But obviously through inadvertence we have not included ORS in the list of items covered under CH 30.05 in the Chapter note 3. This omission in isolation can not be held against classification of branded ORS under CSH 3005.30. 8. emsp In view of the foregoing, I hold that the appellants have been correctly classifying the item under CSH 3005.30. I accordingly set aside the order in original and allow appeal with consequential relief.
2000 (10) TMI 770 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
CARTON CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EXCISE, CALCUTTA-III
Modvat - Aluminium Photo Sensitised Plates, printing of laminated cartons ......
........... late used in the Photo Printing Machine for printing of laminated cartons. The Tribunal vide its earlier order in the appellants rsquo own case being order No. S-661/A-978/CAL/99, dated 6-9-1999 has held the said P.S. Plate to be an eligible input under the provisions of Rule 57A. Accordingly, following the earlier decision of the Tribunal, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
2000 (10) TMI 769 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SIEL REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-I
Modvat - Penalty - Invoice, pre-printed ......
........... ld. JDR for the Revenue I find that the allegations against the appellant is that the invoices issued by them were not pre-printed in respect of any of the requirements. The statutory requirement of Rule 57GG is that such particulars should be pre-printed on the invoice. Although such technical procedural lapse has been held to be not sufficient so as to deny the Modvat credit to the customers, but the fact remains that such procedural statutory contravention has taken place at the appellants rsquo end. The appellant had not denied the violation of the statutory requirements. As such I hold that the appellants are guilty of such procedural requirements. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances I hold that a token penalty of Rs. 500/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I reduce the penalty from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 500/-. But for the above modifications in the impugned order, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
2000 (10) TMI 768 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
AGAUTA SUGAR & CHEMICALS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT
Manufacturer - Job-worker - Duty liability ......
........... in their premises. We find that the facts of the present case are similar to those of the above case. It has not been established by the Department that D.L.F. Industries were only hired labourers of the present appellants, in the manufacturing activity. Moreover, it was clearly found by the Commissioner that the manufacturing activity was performed by M/s. D.L.F. Industries as job workers. Therefore, by following the decision of the Tribunal in Best Cotton Mills (supra), we hold that the TG Sets in question were manufactured by M/s D.L.F. Industries (as job workers) and not by the appellants. The appellants, therefore, did not have any liability to pay Central Excise duty on the goods. The demand of duty as raised by the Department and confirmed by the Commissioner is illegal. Consequently, the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty is also unsustainable. We need not go into other issues. 5. emsp The appeal is allowed, with consequential benefits of the appellants.
2000 (10) TMI 767 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
ALCAST ENGG. PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR
Modvat - Natural justice - Show cause notice, grounds of ......
........... authorised them to do so. The Revenue has now come up with a stand that the credit has been taken after a period of 2 frac12 years. The Revenue cannot be allowed to take the benefit of its own lapses and cannot allege that the appellants were inactive in not pursuing their stand before the Asstt. Commr. In any case, I find that the impugned orders have travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice inasmuch as the allegation in the show cause notice is only to the effect that credit has been taken without seeking permission from the Asstt. Commr. There was no allegation of late availing of credit and on the basis of ineligible documents. The Asstt. Commr. does not adjudicate upon the basic allegation raised in the show cause notice and goes into altogether a new ground for rejecting the Modvat credit. This is not permissible. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
2000 (10) TMI 763 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
UP. STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION Versus COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD
Yarn - Notification No. 53/91-C.E. [ ......
........... r Chapter Heading 52.03 (the goods in dispute have been accepted to be classifiable under this Chapter Heading) was nil, and further noting that the issue has been settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. M/s. Pratap Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in 2000 (91) ECR 856 wherein the Tribunal has held that there is no duty liability on cotton yarn plain (straight) reel hanks as it was exempt under Notification 53/91-C.E., we hold that the appellants are not liable to pay duty upon multifold cotton yarn cleared by them during the period in dispute, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
2000 (10) TMI 761 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
DCP. IMPEX PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
Natural justice - Classification of goods - Remand - Stay Application ......
........... pretation, thereafter he has to take into consideration the Explanatory Notes of HSN. The effect of market enquiry is required to be put up to the appellants before the commencement of personal hearing and as the same has not been done, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order impugned and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo proceedings, with a direction that he shall grant the details of market enquiries to the appellants and call upon them to file a reply thereto and also call upon them to produce technical evidence or such other evidence in rebuttal to the said enquiries and thereafter the Commissioner shall decide the matter expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of receipt of reply from the appellants. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed by way of remand and as there is no question of granting waiver of pre-deposit, the stay application is rejected as infructuous.
2000 (10) TMI 760 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
HINDUSTHAN CABLES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EXCISE, BOLPUR
Waste and scrap - Removal of - Demand - Limitation ......
........... tand that the duty has been paid by their job workers, has also contended that in any case, the duty was not payable on waste and scrap of PVC wires and cables, in view of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Finolex Cables Ltd. v. C.C.Ex., Pune reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 418 (T) 1995 (60) ECR 295 (T). The said decision has since been confirmed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court also. Inasmuch as the PVC waste and scrap was not excisable and hence not liable to duty, the question whether the job worker has paid the duty on the same or whether the same has been received back by the appellants, loses its importance. 8. emsp We also agree with the learned Consultant that the demand of duty having been raised beyond the normal period of six months without making any allegation of Suppression or mis-statement in the show cause notice and without invoking the proviso to Section 11A, is barred by limitation. As a result, we allow the appeal on merits as also on limitation.
2000 (10) TMI 755 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT-II Versus ANKUR AGRO CHEMICAL LTD.
Appeal by Department ......
........... from being in violation of the rules prescribing the method of filing of appeals, such behaviour is indicative of the low esteem in which the Commissioner holds the Tribunal. 2. emsp It is true that the Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules gives the power to the Tribunal to accept or to allow an appellant to amend the defective memorandum. In a number of appeals filed by this very Commissionerate we have given such a liberty and shown leniency in permitting the amendment but we have not come across an appeal earlier in which the appellant Commissioner did not even bother to issue a signed authorisation. In our view it amounts to committing contempt of the Tribunal. We therefore as an extreme case, hold that the appeals are not filed in the manner prescribed and dismiss this bunch of appeal at this stage itself. 3. emsp We direct that copies of this finding be furnished to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara. 4. emsp The stay applications also stand dismissed.
2000 (10) TMI 715 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COMMR. OF C. EX., JAIPUR-II Versus SHANKAR CASTING & INDUSTRIES, AJMER
........... he impugned goods were squarely covered by the earlier circular of the Board. Without such an enquiry followed by definite finding on the question, it could not have been reasonably found that the goods were appropriately classifiable under TH 84.37 in terms of the said circular. Therefore, in our view, the impugned order is not a speaking order on the issue of classification and the matter should be sent back to the lower appellate authority for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. 8. emsp Therefore, without going into other issues, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider, and decide on, the classification issue in accordance with law and pass a speaking order, after giving a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the assessees. The Revenue rsquo s appeal is allowed by way of remand. 9. emsp The cross objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of accordingly.