Commissioner Of C Ex. vs Sambandam Spinning Mills on 11 December, 1998
In the case of C.C.E. v. Singaravellar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. - 1998 (28) RLT 872 (Tribunal) the South Regional Bench in paragraphs 14, 15 & 16 has held as follows :-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.39 seconds)Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Indian Shaving Products Ltd. on 1 October, 1999
The learned Advocate has further invited my attention to Para 31 of the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills v. C.C.E., Coimbatore [1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (Tribunal)] wherein the Larger Bench observed to the effect that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Shanmungraja Spinning Mills (P) Limited (vide supra) was not good law insofar as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's rulings in the cases of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Limited and Indian Copper Corporation on the relevant point had not been brought to the notice of the Bench while dealing with the case of Shanmungraja Spinning Mills (P) Limited. These submissions of the learned Advocate, according to me, must be accepted and support must be drawn from the ratio of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Jawahar Mills in support of the learned Advocate's submission that capacitors are capital goods under Rule 57Q ibid for the purposes of availment of Modvat credit. Hence, the Revenue's appeal is liable to be dismissed and I do accordingly.
Markfed Vanaspati And Allied Indus. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 12 November, 1999
In CCE v. Kiran Spinning Mills, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court regarding the expression 'manufacture'. It has been observed in that case, by the Court as under :-
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Sri Vignesh Yarns (P) Ltd. on 13 November, 1998
12. As far as the comber for combed/coded cotton is concerned, I find that as against the single member decisions submitted by ld. JDR and the other case laws cited (on similar principles of law) by ld. Consultant, this very issue has been already considered by a two member Bench of this very Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Singaravelar Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. and as reported in 1998 (28) RLT 872 (CEGAT). The issues considered therein were as follows :-
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Raj Cement on 10 June, 2002
8. Ld. Counsel also cited and relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. P.M.P. Textiles Spinning Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 698 in which the Tribunal held that eligibility of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 will be determined at the time when the goods are received and if at the time of receipt Modvat credit is not available on the goods, the same will not be eligible for Modvat credit.
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Atlantic Spinning And Weaving Mills ... on 5 February, 1999
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned JDR. We have also gone through the impugned order and the Order-in-Original both of which are against the Revenue. Lower authorities' orders have held that use of synthetic waste alongwith ASF for the purpose of manufacturing yarn of ASF does not mean that the yarn contains any synthetic material. For arriving at their findings the lower authorities have relied on Tribunal's judgment in the case of Priyadarshini Spinning Mills, supra which was a case of classification of a yarn using non-synthetic waste. It was held that yarn manufactured out of ASF and non-synthetic waste cannot be considered as falling under 55.06 which reads as "yarn, (including sewing thread) of Artificial Staple Fibre containing Synthetic staple fibre". The said yarn was held to fall under 55.05 which reads as "yarn (including sewing thread) of Artificial Staple Fibre, not containing synthetic staple fibre". Simple reasoning and finding of the Tribunal based on plethora of evidence and technical opinion was that use of synthetic waste cannot be equated to use of synthetic staple fibre for the purpose of manufacturing yarn of ASF. Since synthetic waste could not be equated to synthetic staple fibre, therefore, Tariff Heading 55.06 was ruled out and Tariff Heading 55.05 was adopted.
Supreme Chemical Works vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 7 June, 2000
In CCE v. Kiran Spinning Mills, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 5 (SC) similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court regarding the expression 'manufacture', it has been observed in that case, by the Court as under-
Hindustan Spg. And Wvg. Mills Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 20 April, 1998
6. The Id. Counsel submitted that there was Notification No. 64/86C.E. which gave total exemption to cylinders which are used for printing in the textile industries. They also drew attention to the Provisions of Notification No. 281/86, dated 24-6-1986. The Id. Counsel also submitted that on the request of Indian Cotton Mills Federation and Mill Owner's Association, Bombay, the Government issued Notification No. 201/87, dated 2-9-1987 and Notification No. 39/90, dated 10-10-1990 under Section 11C granting remission of duty retrospectively. He also submitted that the demand is time barred inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 7-2-1991 whereas the period covered is from 1-3-1986 to 2-9-1987. Summing up his arguments, the Id. Counsel submitted that their case was fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. New Great Eastern Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. [1997 (94) E.L.T. 140]. He submitts that the facts in the case decided by this Tribunal and those in their case were identical and, therefore, the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal is applicable to their case.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Hind Syntex Ltd. on 28 September, 1999
2. Ld. JDR, Shri Y.R. Kilania has submitted that the Explanation relating to 'capital goods' in terms of Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated 23-7-1996 did not include PVC Armoured Cables falling under Chapter sub-heading 8544.00, one of the categories mentioned against (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the definition of the 'capital goods'. According to the Revenue, the meaning of 'capital goods' under categories (a) and (b) of the Explanation was related with the use for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in the substance for manufacture of final products. Likewise, categories (c) and (d) related to the process of manufacture. The Tribunal in C.C.E. v. Shanmugamja Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 84 (Tribunal) had held that for any item to come within the scope of the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q, such item has to be used in the process of manufacture or for bringing about a change in the substance of the goods. P.V.C. Armoured Cables cannot be considered to be falling under any of the aforesaid categories and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly held that P.V.C. Armoured Cables would be eligible to be considered as 'capital goods'.
Shree Bhawani Cotton Mills And Ind. Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 13 October, 1999
3. Arguing the appeal Shri P. Mullick, ld. Chartered Accountant submits that the Notification in question had only two conditions namely that the yarn could be procured without payment of duty by registered co-op, society and that the payment against this purchase should have been by a cheque drawn on the account of the registered co-op, society. Ld. Chartered Accountant submits that both the conditions were complied with by the appellants inasmuch as there was no dispute that M/s. Ratangiri Hathkargha and Subham Hathkargha were registered co-op, societies. He submits that the limited issue which remained was about the payment of the amount by cheque drawn on the account of the registered co-op, society. He submits that M/s. Shree Bhawani Textiles wanted the money urgently and insisted that the payment should be made by both either by Pay Order or Demand Draft. He submitted that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was their bank which has certified that the Pay Order/Demand Draft were issued by them against payment by cheque by the registered co-op, society on their own account. He submits that there are a number of decisions of this Tribunal in which it has been held that payment by Pay Order/Demand Draft procured by issue of cheque on their own account is substantial compliance for payment by cheque under Notification No. 53/91, dated 25-7-1991. Ld. Chartered Accountant cited and relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Aska Spinning Mills reported in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 418.