2001 (4) TMI 352 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
COMMR. OF C. EX., NEW DELHI Versus SHREE GANESH ROLLING MILLS (I) LTD.
Reference to High Court - Modvat on capital goods ......
........... ontrol Panels are part of magnetic lifts which cannot be operated without these electric panels and these control panels are part of the lifts. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that magnetic lifts are not entitled for the benefit of capital goods. In this situation Clause (b) of the Rule 57Q comes into operation which indicates parts of the machine and machinery mentioned in Clause (a) of the Rule. In view of the definition of the capital goods which also includes parts, the question of law has framed, does not arise from the final order. In view of the above, I find no merit in this application, the same is rejected.
2001 (4) TMI 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
TISCO Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR
........... ntral Excises and Salt Act, 1944 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this fact inasmuch as the provisions of Chapter X are self-contained procedure and Rules set out under this chapter are for application to an exception carved out of the main rule for levy of duty at standard rate for the purpose of sub-serving broader industrial interest in the country. We note that this decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Apex Court as is evident from 1998 (101) E.L.T. A189. We find that in this ruling of the Apex Court the ingredients of mis-statement, suppression, collusion or fraud are not necessary and therefore, even if these elements were not available, the demand can be enforced for a period beyond six months. In this case, therefore, both under proviso to Section 11A(1) and under Rule 196, limitation is not applicable, therefore, the contention of the appellant that the demand is time-barred, is rejected. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
2001 (4) TMI 349 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
RAJ STEELS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR
Reference to High Court - Modvat - Deemed credit ......
........... sent case, the appellants made a request to refer the following question of law to the Hon rsquo ble High Court ldquo Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellants of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that used and rejected re-rollable material of Iron and Steel i.e. old rails, wheels, sleepers etc. sold in auction by Railways as scrap on which deemed credit Rs. 920/- per MT are not available in terms of Order No. F.No. 342/T/68-TRU, dated 12-7-1990 and F.No. TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1-3-1994. rdquo 4. emsp The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case held that the rejected re-rolling material, such as old and used rails, wheels, and sleepers are non-duty paid. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the deemed credit order. In view of the earlier Reference order passed by the Tribunal where the earlier Reference application has been rejected. The present application is dismissed.
2001 (4) TMI 347 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SHREE CEMENT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR
Modvat on capital goods ......
........... ital goods rsquo . 4. emsp In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of items dumper, sprag clutch, nylon tyre, hanger castings and bucket elevator disallowing the Modvat credit to the appellants is upheld and maintained. However, his order regarding item, oil circuit breaker, in the light of what has been observed above, is set aside and the matter is sent back for redetermining the claim of the appellants for Modvat credit in respect thereof, to the adjudicating authority (A.C.) who will decide it along with the other items regarding which the matter has already been remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) to him for fresh decision. The Assistant Commissioner will decide the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 5. emsp Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly stands modified and the appeal of the appellants is disposed of in the above terms, by way of remand.
2001 (4) TMI 346 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
PLATE WEL PROCESS & CHEMICALS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA
Order - Appellate order - Modification of - Rectification of mistake ......
........... me as though I am an appellate forum against my own order. This cannot be allowed to be done. Arguments raised before me now as well as the documents which are submitted before me were not submitted before me when the case was heard earlier. Therefore, failure to submit the same cannot be a ground for modification. I am therefore not able to accept the arguments made by Shri Rao. I become functus officio once I pass the impugned order as I cannot review my own order unlike a Civil Court under C.P.C. I cannot rectify it unless there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The way in which the application is drafted and the arguments made before me do not speak of a mistake apparent on the record. The conclusion arrived in my earlier order that it was faulty can only come to the conclusion by long drawn arguments and reappraisal of entire case. This cannot be done under Section 35(C)(2) of the Act. Therefore the instant application is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
2001 (4) TMI 345 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Versus LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD.
Line testing equipment is prima facie not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 73/90-C.E. ......
........... of justice, to allow this appeal for de novo adjudication by the original authority to decide the matter, after ascertaining the technical specifications and thereafter come to a finding that the equipment in question is an integral part of Telephone Exchange or it could be bought and sold as a separate unit. Since we find that in the present case the Commissioner (Appeals) has cryptically relied upon the Instrumental Manual to come to a finding that it is an integral part and from the material on record we cannot determine this essential fact, therefore we consider that the matter should be decided once again and the original authority after taking into consideration the above two decisions of the Tribunal and in decision the case of Karnataka Telecom Ltd., Bangalore if since arrived at. 4. emsp In view of our finding, we allow the Revenue rsquo s appeal as remand for de novo adjudication by the original authority after setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2001 (4) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
ESCORTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II
ESCORTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II ......
........... Section XVII at page 1411 which sets out that pumps, compressors and fans (Heading 84.13 or 84.14) are parts and accessories excluded by Note 2 to Section XVII, whether or not they are identifiable as for the articles of this Section. We are also of the view that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Sri Ram Metal Works reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 616 relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order is prima facie not applicable to the present case, for the reason that water tanks of steel and aluminium which were the goods in dispute in that case were covered by Chapter 73 but held to merit classification under Heading 86.07 as parts of coach work because they were designed for fitting in railway coaches, and goods of Chapter 73 are not excluded from Section XVII by virtue of Note 2 to that Section. We, therefore, dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal.
2001 (4) TMI 343 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
BHARAT GEARS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-VI
Industrial furnaces manufactured tailormade according to the requirements of the buyers ......
........... ere permanently welded, pipes carrying fuel gases, other gases and cooling oil were attached. After the foundation was laid, the furnace was created brick by brick on the steel structure which was permanently welded. On examination of the process we find it to be akin to the furnaces covered by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Silical Metallwgic Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 439 (supra). Applying the ratio of the judgment, we hold that the furnaces manufactured by the appellants were not ldquo goods rdquo and therefore did not attract levy of duty. 7. emsp On the aspect of limitation also we find that the Additional Collector as early as in July, 1985 had examined the same issue and had held that the furnace did not attract duty. In the face of this judgment, there is no substance in the claim of suppression etc. levelled in the show cause notices. 8. emsp Thus, on merits as well as on limitation, the appeals succeed and are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
2001 (4) TMI 341 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
VIRAT SHIP BREAKING CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT
Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty ......
........... fter issue of show cause notice and after hearing the importers, the Commissioner passed the orders specifying a fine of Rs. One lakh and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, the appeal. 3. emsp During the proceedings, the importers have consistently maintained that the ship was situated in such a manner as to necessitate early lightening of weight. It was submitted that the action of the importer was not motivated. We find that confiscation under Sec. 111(j) of the Customs Act was correctly made. We also find that the ld. Commissioner has taken into account all the aspects in imposing token fine and penalty. We do not find that the importers deserve more leniency and dismiss the appeal.
2001 (4) TMI 340 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR Versus DCL. POLYESTER LTD.
Modvat - Capital goods ......
........... rtain instructions given by the Board to the effect that in such circumstances the assessees could take credit. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against this order. The sole ground made in the appeal is that the credit could not be taken before installation of the goods. We, however, find that the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide their Circular No. 277/111/96-CX dated 2-12-96 have clarified that where the factory was already in production and where additional capital goods were received prior to 1-1-96, there were no requirement of installation of the goods as a precondition to taking the credit. We also find that the very specific situation is covered in the following judgment of the Tribunal - (1) Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Pune 1996 (87) E.L.T. 557 (2) M/s. H.E.G. Ltd. v. CCE, Indore 1998 (100) E.L.T. 133 (Tri.) (3) Hindustan Cables Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur 2001 (42) RLT 629 3. emsp The appeal from the Revenue does not sustain and is dismissed.
2001 (4) TMI 338 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
COMMR. OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-IV Versus INDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD.
Fabrics - Stiffened fabrics ......
........... ed fabric. rdquo The nature of stiffness of the fabric does not satisfy the basic parameters for holding the fabrics to be stiffened fabrics. There is also nothing on record to show that the stiffness of the fabric is permanent and not temporary, which effect is achieved by the fabric while undergoing the process of finishing by application of various products. The Revenue has also not placed on record any evidence to show that the fabrics being processed by the respondents are meant for book binding cloth, so as to qualify for being classified under heading 59.01. Even the Revenue in their appeal has not produced any evidence to that effect. Accordingly, we find that the Commissioner has passed a correct Order by applying the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Sunita Textiles Ltd. and in view of the Chief Chemical Examiner rsquo s report. The appeal filed by the Revenue is thus rejected. Cross Objection filed by the respondent firm also stands disposed of.
2001 (4) TMI 336 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
MILAN LABORATORIES INDIA Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III
Medicines - P or P medicines ......
........... nded up to 31-3-1987 and in terms of the E.S.I.S. letter referred to above was again extended up to 30-4-1987. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) a letter dated 27-11-1986 was also placed to this effect but she refused to look into it on the ground that the same had not been placed before the Asstt. Commissioner. She termed the production as ldquo new evidence rdquo . We are afraid that the Commissioner rsquo s understanding is wrong. Where a contract was subsequently renewed and where the period subsequent to the earlier contract was covered by such extension, the benefit of the Notification would continue. On this observation, we do not find that the Commissioner (Appeals rsquo ) order would sustain on the second ground. The appeal on this aspect is allowed and the issue is remitted back to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner who will examine the contracts and their continuity and then pass appropriate orders deciding the case on merits. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
2001 (4) TMI 335 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
RISHABH INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-VII
Demand - Limitation ......
........... gly taken. The Addl. Commissioner passed the order confirming the duty and imposing the penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of both the amounts and in the failure of the appellants he dismissed the appeal before him in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. 3. emsp It is correct that the certificate given by the Customs is not a document mentioned in Rule 57G. It, however, certifies the payment of basic duty and CVD. The fact that the goods had suffered duty is not in dispute. On 12-7-1993 the fact of credit having been taken was duly reported in the registers and also formed part of RT. 12 returns. The certificate given by the Customs formed part of the documentation. In that case, there was absolutely no ground for the authorities to have invoked the extended period by accusing the assessees of deliberate suppression. On the ground of limitation alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, is be follow.
2001 (4) TMI 333 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
GAJRAJ CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-I
SSI Exemption ......
........... in the case of Jai Industries was adopted by the three Member Bench judgment in the case of Amar Machine Tools (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1995 (80) E.L.T. 595 (Tribunal) . 7. emsp It is not that the scheme did not permit the assessees to opt of one option and seek the other. This has been brought out in the case of Natraj Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. 1994 (74) E.L.T. 344 (Tribunal) as well as K.F. Beltings Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1994 (72) E.L.T. 891 (Tribunal) . 8. emsp We thus find that where the alternate beneficial avenue was open to the assessees, the order of the Commissioner following only one option was not sustainable. This bunch of appeal is allowed. The matters are remanded back to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals). He will grant another opportunity to the appellant to be heard and then proceed to decide the issue afresh, in terms of our observations above. 9. emsp The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
2001 (4) TMI 331 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SAIL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR
........... ttention to the Govt. of India rsquo s order in the case of Sahara Indian Airlines reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 802 (GOI) where taking into account the various provisions of the Central Government Account (Receipts and Payments) Rules, 1983, it has been held that upon tendering of cheque, the same shall be deemed that the payment has been made on the date when it was handed over to the Govt. banker. Reference has also been made to the Supreme Court decision. 4. emsp After carefully considering the issue involved, I see no reason to differ with the law as laid down in the above decision referred by the appellants. Inasmuch as there is no dispute that the cheques presented by the appellants were subsequently encashed by the Revenue and no cheque was dishonoured, the date of presentation of the cheque has to be taken as the relevant date for the purpose of taking credit. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.