Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Vivek Re-Rolling Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 21 July, 1994

Fag Precision Bearings Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Customs on 27 January, 1998

Therefore, the matter now stands settled by the Supreme Court decision in Re-rolling Mills case, and, applying the ratio of the decision, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the erroneous refund granted in these cases can be recovered only by issue of notice within the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 notwithstanding the action taken under Section 35E of the Act. The Department's appeals are therefore rejected.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rohan Coach Builders vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 6 August, 1997

2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate submits that the description of the final product input and components in the declaration is the same for all type of manufacture under Chapter Heading 8702 or 8703. It is due to inadvertent mistake that they had missed to put the Chapter Heading 8702 and 8403. It is submitted that there is no cross utilisation of inputs, as this is the same input which goes into the manufacture of vehicle. They had filed classification list under Rule 173Q and other documents reflected under Chapter Heading 8703. It is their contention that such type of procedural lapse have been condoned by the Tribunal as can be seen in number of cases as cited in Khosla Cast Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 691, Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 175, Chamundi Steel Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 563 and Roche Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 127. It is therefore, his submission that due to this inadvertent lapse of not putting the Chapter heading 8703 in the initial declaration they cannot be denied the benefit of Modvat credit nor penalty can be imposed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rosemount (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 29 January, 1998

The appeal was against Tribunal's decision in the case of Re Rolling Mills v. Collector -1989 (43) E.L.T. 115. It was held by the Tribunal that when any duty has been erroneously refunded Section 11A requires that the Central Excise Officer should within six months from the relevant date serve a notice on the person to whom the refund has been erroneously refunded to show-cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. The time limit of Section 11A, the Tribunal observed, governs the issue of demand under that Section and that section alone. "It follows that if no demand has been issued in accordance with Section HA, nothing else can take its place." The Tribunal also held in that decision that an order passed by the Appellate Collector under Section 35E cannot have the effect of nullifying Section 11A and its time limit. Dismissing the Department's appeal against the Tribunal's decision the Supreme Court held:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kundan Steel Works vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 19 July, 1999

4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the matter went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) as the Assistant Collector had revised the classification list without issuing the show cause notice. The learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, has also mentioned that prior to this the benefit of Notification No. 202/88 was allowed to them in respect of the very same inputs. We find substantial force in his submission and as benefit of notification has been denied, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Re-rolling Mills (supra), the ratio of that decision in toto should apply in their matters also. He has also mentioned that the Assistant Collector has so far not readjudicated the matter on remand by the Collector (Appeals). We, therefore, direct the Assistant Collector to consider the plea of the appellant for allowing deemed Modvat credit, if, otherwise, admissible to them. All the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kelvinator Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 15 February, 1996

5. On a very careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the records, I find the order of the learned Collector is not sustainable. The simple reason being that both the items CRC Sheets as well as CR Sheets in coil form are both classifiable under Chapter 72 and they are declared inputs for the purpose of granting the MODVAT Credit under Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986. The appellants had after receipt of the inputs at the first instance itself filed a revised declaration on 4-5-1992 even before taking the MODVAT Credit in RG-23A Part II and the same had been rightly considered by the Assistant Collector. The minor variation in this case in only with regard to sub-heading of the item while both the inputs fall under the same Chapter heading and therefore, so long as the items fall under the same Chapter heading specified in the Notification, the benefit of the MODVAT Credit cannot be denied to them. In this particular case the appellants had rightly followed the procedure and notwithstanding the provision of Rule 57H the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the MODVAT Credit. The Tribunal has also taken a view in the case of Chamundi Steel Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 563 that MODVAT Credit cannot be denied to the assessee so long as they have observed all the procedures and maintained the records. In this particular case there has been no violation and that the assessee has followed all the procedure and therefore. Assistant Collector had rightly granted them the benefit.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1