Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Rare Earths Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bbsr-I on 27 September, 2001

Classic vs Union on 11 April, 2012

In the case before us, there is no dispute that until recent past, the Revenue treated the goods in question as "ore". It further appears from record that IREAL, another importer of the selfsame article, is not paying any CVD and the Tribunal at Kolkata has in the case of Indian Rare Earths Ltd vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., BBSR- 1 reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 352 (Tri. - Kolkata) has adopted the contention raised by the petitioners in this case; however, there is no decision of any Tribunal situated in this State on the above question.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

M/S Trimax Sands Pvt Ltd vs M/S Trimax Sands Pvt Ltd on 6 November, 2017

18. The issue hinges on the point whether the processes employed by the respondent amount to beneficiation so as to hold classification under 26140020. It is apparent that the process is undertaken in an elaborate plant employing a string of various mechanical and physical processes. Revenue is implying, by referring to CEGATs decision in Indian Rare Earths Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2002 (139) ELT 352(Tri.- Kolkata), that, because no special process including roasting and chemical treatment is carried out, the process does not result in beneficiated ilmenite. We are unable to appreciate this reasoning because Firstly, the citation referred to is on the manufacture and exciseability of the product and not on the issue of classification. Therefore, reference to this citation is clearly misplaced.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Trimax Sands Pvt Ltd vs M/S Trimax Sands Pvt Ltd on 6 November, 2017

18. The issue hinges on the point whether the processes employed by the respondent amount to beneficiation so as to hold classification under 26140020. It is apparent that the process is undertaken in an elaborate plant employing a string of various mechanical and physical processes. Revenue is implying, by referring to CEGATs decision in Indian Rare Earths Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2002 (139) ELT 352(Tri.- Kolkata), that, because no special process including roasting and chemical treatment is carried out, the process does not result in beneficiated ilmenite. We are unable to appreciate this reasoning because Firstly, the citation referred to is on the manufacture and exciseability of the product and not on the issue of classification. Therefore, reference to this citation is clearly misplaced.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Miracle Sands And Chemicals vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service ... on 6 May, 2026

In the case of M/s.Classic Microtech Private Limited supra, Co-ordinate Bench of 39 CESTAT at Ahmedabad considering an issue under identical circumstances and in the context of insertion of Note 4 to Chapter 26 of CETA, 1985 has held that the items imported were Zirconium ore/sand and did not fall into the category of 'concentrates'. This decision was rendered on 31.07.2012 based on chemical test reports. It is also not in dispute that the ignorance of change in tariff was not confined to the Appellant alone as government units from whom Appellant made purchases were equally unaware of the changes made in the Tariff and they started paying duty only from June 2012 prompting the Appellant to follow suit. We also find from the amended Registration Certificate dated 09.10.2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Kovilpatti Division that the Appellant submitted an application to the department on 22.08.2012 for inclusion of various items including the items under dispute, for manufacture after they became aware of insertion of Note 4 in Chapter 26 of the CETA, 1985. The amendment sought and carried out did not spur the officers into action and thus they also remained unaware of the changes in the Tariff till the Audit Report in the year 2014 pointed out the same. Therefore, there are enough reasons to believe that but for the payment of duty from June 2012 by the Appellant, even 40 the audit team would not have noticed the non-payment of duty and hence, as rightly pointed out by the Appellant, answering a reference from their 100% EOU, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, vide letter dated 13.01.2017 has confirmed that after separation of impurities from the imported sand containing minerals, the Ilmenite exported by the Appellant having not undergone any processes, fell for classification under CTH 26140010 as 'Ilmenite unprocessed'. Thus, the jurisdictional Customs officer was also of the view that mere separation of impurities did not result in processed mineral or concentrate.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1