Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Steel Authority Of India vs Collector Of Customs on 9 October, 1991

Collector Of Customs vs Keshari Steels on 21 March, 1994

8. We have considered the submissions. This Tribunal after threshing out the case law on the point and referring to the various literature and arguments advanced by the parties held that the refractory bricks for future use in the furnace are 'spares' and are not eligible for exemption under Notification Nos. 242/76-Cus. and 112/87-Cus. See the aforesaid cases of Steel Authority of India Limited v. Collector of Customs, 1989 (42) E.L.T. 89; Collector of Customs v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 1992 (57) E.L.T. 473; Steel Authority of India Limited v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 173; and Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Limited v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (66) E.L.T. 683.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shri Ishar Alloys Steel Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 16 May, 2000

13. In the impugned order the Collector of Customs specifically held that the goods in question are bricks of special shape & quality. Nothing contrary to this finding is brought on record by the Revenue. The Notification No. 124/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 provides concessional rate of duty to refractory bricks falling under Heading 98.06 of Customs Tariff. As discussed above the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 98.06 of Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the goods in question are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 124/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. Appeals are disposed of as indicated above.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hindustan Sanitaryware And Indus. Ltd. vs Collr. Of Cus. on 21 April, 1994

5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. From the invoice it is clear the subject goods are Recrystal-lined Silicon Carbide Refractory beams. We are not convinced with the arguments advanced by the appellants' Counsel that brick and beam are one and the same. He has not placed on record any catalogue or technical literature from the foreign supplier to substantiate his claim that refractory beam is nothing but a brick. ISI specification also does not take note of beam while dealing with the specifications for bricks and types of bricks and beam has not been included in the category of such bricks as it was rightly pointed out by the Senior Departmental Representative. Apart from this fact plain reading of the Notification No. 242/76-Cus. it is clear that it exempts refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnace falling under Heading 69.01/02 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We find that in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 173 while considering the issue whether refractory blocks are exempted from Notification No. 242/76-Cus. it was held that refractory bricks and blocks are separate entity and have separate existence and Notification 242/76-Cus. exempts bricks and not blocks. Accordingly since notification exempts bricks and not beams, we do not find any merit in the claim of the appellants. In the view, we have taken we uphold the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the party is hereby rejected.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jindal Strips Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 30 May, 1997

6.2 Perusal of Tribunal's orders in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -1989 (42) E.L.T. 89 (Tribunal) would, however, reveal that this may not always be so. In that case, a refund claim was filed contending that refractory bricks were eligible to exemption under Notification 242/76, dated 2-8-1976 on the ground that refractory bricks of special shape and quality are for use as component parts of industrial furnace. It was, however, held by Tribunal that the refractory bricks in question were meant for use in the steel teeming ladle and not for industrial furnace and as such were not eligible for the benefit of the notification. Tribunal held that teeming ladles are not incorporated into nor are these the integral part of furnace. Tribunal, therefore, held that refractory bricks as imported even of special shape and quality cannbt be considered as component parts of industrial furnace.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Digambar Foundary vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 30 March, 2000

The importance of trade notices had been emphasised by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. The trade notices are required to be followed not only in the Commissionerate where they were issued but they were to be followed in other Commissionerates as well, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 2000 (36) R.L.T. 369 (S.C). Paras -2 and 3 from that judgment are extracted below :-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Collector Of C. Ex. vs Piramal Spg. Weaving Mills Ltd. on 4 May, 2000

As per this Notification, entire printing frames falling under 84.42 are exempt from duty if those frames are used in the factory of production in printing of textile fabrics. Printing frames is not an item found in Tariff Entry 84.42. Printing frames made mention of in this notification must therefore take within its ambit plates, cylinders and other printing components mentioned in the tariff entry. There is no justification for the Department to restrict the scope of the word printing frames to flat frames to the exclusion of cylinders. If this restricted meaning is attributed it will amount to redrafting the notification. The scope of this notification, has been further clarified by the Ministry of Finance in its letter F. No. 232/339/87-CX. 7, dated 12-2-1988 referred to by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. That letter explained that 'design screens' and 'cylinder screens' were eligible for exemption under Notification 201/87, dated 3-9-1987 when used captively. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 42 took the view that customs authorities cannot take one stand in one State and another stand in another State. In relation to trade notice issued by one Custom House. Their Lordships observed that it will bind all customs authorities and if it is erroneous it should be withdrawn or amended. In the absence of such withdrawal or amendment it must bind the entire Department. If that be the case in relation to trade notice, we are clear in our mind that the Department is bound by the letter issued by the Ministry of Finance on 12-2-1988. That letter leaves no room to doubt the scope of exemption contained in Notification 201/87, dated 3-9-1987. In other words, all printing frame, whether flat or cylindrical, are entitled to get exemption if they are captively consumed in the factory of production in printing of textile fabrics.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kudremukh Iron Ore Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 5 October, 2000

It is worthwhile to note that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 2000 (115) ELT 42 took the view that even the trade notice issued by one Customs House must bind all Customs authorities throughout the nation. In such a situation, the Departmental Representative was not to advance any argument against the terms of the letter sent by the Central Board of Excise and Customs referred to earlier.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 17 March, 1993

7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the records. The question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the imported item which is used as replacement part in the Regenerator, would be a part of the furnace. In other words, is the Regenerator installed in the importers' furnace an integral part of the furnace to enable them to claim the benefit of the notification in question? The lower authorities have denied the exemption on the ground that the Regenerator is an independent unit and cannot be considered as an integral part of the furnace and, therefore, the imported refractory bricks which are going to be used in the refractors cannot be deemed to be used as part of furnace. The reasoning of the learned Collector has already been extracted above. Is this finding sustainable in the light of the finding given by the Tribunal in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra)? The question that came up for consideration in that case is the use of refractory bricks specially designed for use for construction of teaming laddie of open health furnace. The Bench while discussing the issue, has held in para 8 as follows -
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1