Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 2005 Page 100 of about 2,223 results (0.018 seconds)

Jan 07 2005 (TRI)

Tijiya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Decided on : Jan-07-2005

Reported in : (2005)(101)ECC175

1. heard shri k.k. banerjee, ld. advocate for the appellants and shri j.r. madhiam, ld. jdr for the respondents.2. shri banerjee submits that the allegation of clandestine removal is based on the despatch register where some entries were made without mentioning any invoice and vehicle no. he submits that the said register was meant for goods to be dispatched. where vehicle no. and invoice wee mentioned, the goods were dispatched and where nothing was mentioned the goods were yet to be dispatched. no verification was conducted at the address of the parties whether any goods were received by them or not. he submits that the commissioner should not have passed any order without conducting any investigation for clandestine the absence of any verification, no such charge is sustainable. he submits that the clandestine removal is a serious charge which is required to be proved by the revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. there must be absolute proof and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. he relies on the following decisions:cce v. universal polyethylene industries : 2001 (130) elt 228 (t);durga trading company v. cce : 2002 (148) elt 967 (t), as affirmed by the supreme court reported in 2003 (157) elt a 315;padmanabh dueing & finishing works v. cce : 1997 (90) elt 343 (t); (vi) cce v. sanghamitra cotton mills (p) ltd. : 2004 (163) elt 472 (t).he also submits that the commissioner should not have relied upon the statement of sri .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2005 (TRI)

Modern Engg. Works and R.A. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-10-2005

1. these two appeals which arise from the same order are being dispensed by this common order. m/s. modern.engg. works with shri.richard a. furtado as proprietor are the appellants. they engage themselves in the manufacture of excisable goods. the officers visited the premises, conducted enquiries and a proceeding was launched which concluded that clearance of excisable goods were effected from the common premises at 3, united industrial house, shanti nagar, vakola, santacruz (e), mumbai under the guise of production of m/s. modern engg. works, m/s. a richard & co. and m/s. intel rich engineers. these clearance exceeded rs. 30 and the benefit of ssc exemption notification was denied and duty demands were made and penalties imposed on the firm and its proprietor. hence these appeals. a) the lower authorities have considered the material and evidence on record and the case law in the subject. the cce (a) has arrived at the following findings after the consideration - "in the instant case, the statements given by the persons concerned and the findings of the adjudicating authority reveals that the said three units namely modem engineering works, intel rich engineers and a. richard & co. are one and the same with different names, having common premises, some common workers etc. the appellants in the instant case have not been able to produce any specific documents or reason to counter the specific finding given by the adjudicating authority and they have not been able to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2005 (TRI)

Fairbanks Morse India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-11-2005

1. the issue involved in these two appeals, filed by m/s. fairbanks morse (india) ltd. is that whether the benefit of exemption under notification no. 236/86 ce dated 3-4-1986 is available in respect of column and shaft assembly and discharge head assembly manufactured by them.2. shri a.r. madhav rao learned advocate, mentioned that the appellants manufacture vertical turbine pumps which mainly consist of bowl assembly, column and shaft assembly and discharge head assembly; that all the three items put together comprises of the power driven pumps in respect of which the benefit of exemption was availed of by them from time to time; that the proceedings were initiated by the department by issuing various show cause notices proposing to demand duty on the column and shaft assembly and discharge head assembly on the ground that they are accessories of the power driven pump and hence not eligible for the exemption; that the show cause notices had been confirmed by the deputy commissioner by demanding the central excise duty and the commissioner (appeals) also under the impugned order had rejected their appeals relying upon the decision of the hon'ble gujarat high court in the case of jyoti limited v. union of india 1979 (4) e.l.t. (j 546) (guj.).3. the learned advocate submitted that a power driven pump is a pump having an inbuilt bowl assembly (impeller and volute assembly) and discharge pipe designed and built integrally as a complete unit called a mono block pump; that as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2005 (TRI)

Dell Computer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Decided on : Jan-31-2005

Reported in : (2005)(184)ELT83Tri(Bang.)

1. m/s. dell computer india pvt. ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant'), a 100% e.o.u. under the software technology park scheme of government of india, are aggrieved over the fact that the impugned order-in-appeal denies the benefit of exemption notification no.52/2003-cus., dated 31-3-2003 in respect of 'master key for security lock'.2. shri pramod banthia, learned chartered accountant and shri s.madhavan, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and shri r.v. ramakrishnappa, jdr appeared on behalf of the revenue.3. we have gone through the records and also heard the parties. the commissioner (appeals) in his order has clearly recorded that the imported item is mentioned in the annexure to the notification.further, he has stated that the item cannot be said to be used in the manufacture for development of software, data entry and conversion, data processing, data analysis, etc. on this ground, the benefit of the exemption notification has been denied. we have gone through the technical literature. there are different types of security system. the following extract from the technical literature gives an idea about the function of the security lock :- ingram sku : 954531 (keyed alike), 628625 (master key) msrp: $ 32.95 the universal tab lock is for all dell optiplex gx50, gx150, gx240, gx260, dell precision workstations and dimension desktops. the universal lock helps to protect internal components. keyed alike or master keying available. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2005 (TRI)

The Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Decided on : Feb-14-2005

Reported in : (2005)(186)ELT194Tri(Kol.)kata

1. heard shri samir chakraborty, advocate on the stay application filed by the appellant. duty involved in this case is rs. 44,93,848.00 lakhs and the penalty of rs. 10,000.00 has been imposed upon the appellants.the issue is regarding the "combi-pack" of three pieces of 100 gms. of margo soaps and one 50 gms. neem active brand tooth paste, the later being supplied free. the advocate has submitted a written brief which is taken on brief. he draws our attention to tribunal's findings in case of surya food and agro ld. v. commr. of central excise, noida reported in 2003 (156) elt 488 (tri-del) wherein it has been held by the tribunal that : "while selling certain varieties of biscuits, the appellants supplied small quantities of certain other varieties free - such free supplied not includible in assessable value" the tribunal has held a similar view in the catse of vinayaka mosquito coil manufacturing co. v. cce bangalore reported in 2004 (174) elt 107 (tri-bang). he has also drawn out attention to standard of weight and measures (packaged commodities) rules 1977 where "combi pack" has been defined. he submits that the product of appellant is a combi pack.referring on the tribunal's decision quoted above, he submits that his case is covered one and the appellant should be given full dispensation from the duty and penalty.2. heard shri madhiam, learned jdr who reiterates the findings of the commissioner.3. we have heard both the sides. we find that in cases referred to above. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2005 (TRI)

Associated Ploymer Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Decided on : Feb-17-2005

Reported in : (2005)(101)ECC666

1. heard shri a.k. biswas, advocate on the stay application filed by the appellant. this is a case involving clandestine removal of the excisable goods and the shortage of the modvatable inputs. the duty involved is rs. 4.62 lakhs and an equal amount of penalty have been imposed. he says that the shortage was due to non-weighment of granules lying scattered in the premises. the shortage of hdpe pipes were the consignments which were already cleared in two invoices but not dispatched by the transporter due to their difficulties and returned to the factory premises. he submits that the commissioner (appeals) has not given any effective hearing and as such at this stage of the stay the appellant may be dispensed from the payment of duty and penalty. he further submits that rs. one lakh has already been deposited by the appellants which was adjusted by the adjudicating authority.2. heard shri j.r. madhiam, ld. jdr for the revenue. he submits that there was a joint verification done at the time of visit by the central excise officers. the appellant at no stage has said that the joint verification was done under pressure or duress. he submits the findings of the lower authority that as per the statutory records physically stocks of the input should be 20284 kgs but it was found nil. the shortage was admitted by the partner of the appellant mr. jagmohan daga. as regards the removal of hdpe pipes on 7th and 8 february, the adjudicating officer has found it the plea of the appellant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2005 (TRI)

Birla Tyres Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Decided on : Feb-18-2005

1. heard shri s.c. sood, general manager for appellant and shri j.r.madhiam, jdr for respondent.2. mr. sood submits that there is no dispute of duty paid character of goods receipt, consumption and accounting of goods and they are eligible to avail the modvat credit as per rules. they have complied with all procedure formalities and the substantial benefit of modvat should not be denied to the appellant. he submits that the dispute is relating to chapter sub-heading. the appellant have availed modvat on the basis of actual duty paid document input received directly on the strength of invoice. he submits that the commissioner (appeals) of central excise and customs, bhubaneswar has not considered the appellant's modvat declaration. they have filed modvat credit under erstwhile rule 57g of central excise rules, 1944. the description mentioned in the modvat declaration filed is the description mentioned in the invoice of the input. there is only difference of ce chapter sub-heading in the modvat declaration filed versus as is appearing in duty paying documents. he submits that they have fulfilled the mandatory requirement of filing declaration under rule 57g(1) so they are substantially complied with the requirement of rule 57g(1). there is nexus beyond doubt between the input received and the modvat declaration filed for which the credit has been taken. he submits that it is well settled that the modvat benefit admissible even if description or chapter sub-heading shown in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2005 (TRI)

C.C. and C.E. Vs. Poly Twines

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-03-2005

Reported in : (2005)(185)ELT151TriDel

1. in this appeal, filed by the revenue, the issue involved is whether poly propylene twines manufactured by m/s. poly twines are classifiable under sub-heading 5607.41, as claimed by the revenue or under sub-heading 3926.90 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act as confirmed by the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order.2. shri randhir singh, learned d.r, submitted that m/s. poly twines, manufactured poly propylene twines; that heading 56.07 specifically applied to twines and sub-heading 5607.41 refers to binder or baler twine; that in hsn also the twine is also specifically classifiable under heading 5607 only; that there is no mention of poly propylene twines under chapter 39; that as per rule 3 (a) of the rules for the interpretation of the schedule, the heading which provides the most specific description should be preferred to heading providing a more general description while arriving at the correct classification of the goods. the learned d.r. also placed reliance on the notes to hsn which mention that heading 56.07 covers twine, cordage, ropes and cables produced by twisting or by plaiting or braiding; that the respondents manufactured the impugned product mainly by the process of extrusion; that the blow film bubble or film coming out of extruder is then quenched, cut into required size, stretched and then oriented; that, further, it goes into folding rollers where folding is done and finally the process of pressing and embossing is done; that this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Vs. Smt. Bhagabati Devi Goenka

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Decided on : Mar-11-2005

1. the appeal has been filed by the commissioner of customs (prev.) against the order-in-appeal no. prev/cus/213/2003 dated 30.09.2003 passed by the commissioner of customs (appeals), kolkata the transport vehicle no. wb-03/5403 of smt. bhagabati devi goenka (herein after referred as respondent) was seized on 27.02.1998. the said vehicle was released on 27.03.1998 provisionally on payment of cash security of rs. 35,000/-. the respondent thereafter submitted an application before the deputy commissioner of customs praying for withdrawal of the case against he r unconditionally and for returning the deposited amount of rs. 35 thousand. on 12.02.1999 the assistant commissioner of customs intimated the respondent that the bond executed for provisional release of the vehicle has been cancelled and the cash security of rs. 35,000/- will be refunded and the appellant was advised to contact the assistant commissioner for getting the refund of this cash security. the said sum of rs. 35,000/- was refunded to the appellant on 22.04.1999 by cheque. subsequently a show cause notice was issued on 24.05.1999 and the lower authority has confiscated the vehicle under section 115 of the customs act, 1962 with an option to pay the redemption fine of rs. 35,000/- in lieu of confiscation. since the appellant had furnished security deposit of rs. 35,000/- at the time of provisional release, it was ordered that the same was appropriated towards adjustment of redemption fine. being aggrieved, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2005 (TRI)

Bhusan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Decided on : Mar-16-2005

Reported in : (2005)(186)ELT197Tri(Kol.)kata

1. heard shri n.k. chaudhary, adv for the appellant and shri j.r.madhiam, dr for respondent.2. mr. chaudhary submits that the officers visited their factory on 07.09.2001 and left the factory on 08.09.2001 in course of such short period it was not possible on their part to verify the stock of such huge quantities of stock weighing more than 7 thousand metric tone.from verification report it is not evident as to how the verification was conducted by the officers. the mode of verification has not been mentioned anywhere and it was done on eye estimation and which is not permissible under the rules. such verification is no verification and no demand can be based on eye estimation. the ld. commissioner (appeals) failed to appreciate that such hug quantities of material could not be verified by officers in such a short period. he has not dealt with the question of verification and therefore the order is bas in the eye of law. he further submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of trac air conditioning systems ltd. v. commr. of central excise, bangalore 2005 (180) elt 327.he submits that no such confiscation can be ordered till the good are removed from the factory premises. he further submits that the verification carried out by the officer suffered from uncertainties in absence of the mode of arriving the excesses and shortages. the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant and the impugned order ought to have set aside. he relies on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //