Collector Of Central Excise vs Maize Products Ltd. on 6 July, 1994
(ii) Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Maize Products Ltd. -1994 (73) E.L.T. 390 (Tribunal).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Krishna Chander Dutta (Spice) Private ... vs Commercial Tax Officer And Ors. on 23 February, 1994
Sieving of duty paid anhydrous dextrose powder and removal of moisture to get dextrose powder not amounting to manufacture, (iii) Krishna Chander Dutta (Spice) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer -1994 (70) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.)
Reckitt & Colman Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 29 October, 1996
Packing of ultramarine blue in smaller packing amounting to manufacture only after the relevant Chapter Note 6 to Chapter Note 32 introduced to that effect in Finance Act, 1995 and not earlier, (v) Reckitt & Colman of India Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore -1996 (82) E.L.T. 407.
Vijaya Packers vs Collector Of Central Excise on 21 July, 1993
5. Regarding Glucose-D, on merits, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the Tribunal's decision in Vijaya Packers v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 254 was against them. He, however, pointed out that the show cause notice referred to Glucose-D as falling under Heading 1702.19 which covered other sugars whereas the order, after the corrigendum, classified Glucose-D under Heading 1702.29 covering preparations of other sugars. Shri Asthana contended that such a corrigendum which sought to change the classification of the product decided under the order is not permissible. It was not a clerical mistake which could be corrected by a corrigendum but a change of classification from the one decided and one contrary to the proposal in the show cause notice.
Creative Cosmetics vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 July, 1992
6. The above mentioned submissions in support of the appeal were resisted by Shri J.M. Sharma, learned Departmental Representative. He stated that the Tribunal had classified Glucovita or Glucon-D as preparation of other Sugars under Heading 1702.21 and, accordingly, classification being a question of law, it was open to the Collector to apply the correct classification. As regards the plea of limitation, he pointed out that the Collector had considered the appellant's contention and held that the Board's Circular 21/70, dated 4-6-1970 relied upon by them was no longer valid under the new tariff. Glucose-D containing other added ingredients is not the same as Dextrose Monohydrate. Such addition and blending had been suppressed in the classification list where they had only mentioned repacking. This finding was supported by Shri Sharma who relied upon Tribunal's decision in Skep Cosmetics v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 734 and contended that the longer time limit was applicable in the present case. As regards the other product, cornflour, appellant had received maize starch and cleared cornflour which is a different product known as such. Manufacture was involved and duty had been correctly demanded, he concluded.
Fenner (India) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madurai on 28 March, 1995
7. Shri Asthana gave a rejoinder to the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative that for Glucose-D, the rate of duty under Heading 1702.19 as per the show cause notice was 15% while the rate of duty under the Heading 1702.29 as per the order as corrected was 12%. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fenner India Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai -1995 (77) E.L.T. 8 about it not being open to the department to make out a new case of tariff classification different from the one proposed originally.
Finance Act, 1999
Collector Of Central Excise vs Asmi Industries on 1 December, 1995
Learned Counsel pointed out that the Tribunal had, in Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Asmi Industries -1996 (85) E.L.T. 313, held that classification of goods cannot be revised or modified by issuing a corrigendum to the adjudication order.
1