Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)
Bina Corporation vs Collector Of Customs on 26 October, 1984 cites

Mysore Industrial Plastic Corporation vs Collector Of Customs on 5 January, 1983

6. Shri Krishnamoorthy contended that the imported C.A. Scrap could not be directly moulded but had to be first sorted, ground, granulated, plasticised and made into moulding powder. The Tribunal, in its order dated 5-1-1983 in Mysore Industrial Plastic Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Madras - 1983 (12) ELT 845, held that acrylic plastic sheet crushed scrap which could not be directly moulded did not fall under Item 15A(1) of Central Excise Tariff since it could not be deemed to be plastic material within the ambit of the said item. The position of C.A. Scrap was similar and deserved the same treatment. That scrap of plastic Article is not the same thing as plastic material was borne out by Central Excise Notification No. 23/73, dated 12-2-1973. It was also not an Article of plastics falling under Item 15A(2) Central Excise Tariff.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Modella Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 27 March, 1983

7. Shri Krishnamoorthy then referred to the Tribunal's decision in Modella Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1983 (13) ELT 1020] and submitted that, as in the case of woollen rags in that decision which were fit only for recovery of wool, so with the present goods which were fit only for recovery of plastic material, there was no manufacturing activity involved and, hence, no excise duty would be leviable on similar indigenous scrap and, therefore, no countervailing duty on imported scrap. Shri Krishnamoorthy next placed reliance on the Tribunal's Order No. 590-597/ 83-C dated 27-12-1983, in Paresh Products, 3amnagar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [Appeals Nos. CD(SB)(T) 184/77-C and Ors. = 1984 (16) ELT 438], by which it was held that crushed acrylic scrap was not liable to countervailing duty under Item 15A(1) Central Excise Tariff. The ratio of the decision applied to the present matters.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Paresh Products vs Collector Of Customs on 27 December, 1983

The decision in the Paresh Products case is one later in point of time to the one in Pla-Age Industries case and it has gone into the issue at great length on the basis of the arguments addressed. We would, therefore, prefer to follow this decision. Applying the ratio of this decision, C.A. Scrap did not fall under either Item No. 15A(1) or 15A(2) Central Excise Tariff. It has also to be remembered that, scrap came to be included in Item 15A Central Excise Tariff for the first time by the amendment of 1982. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that scrap was not excisable before the amendment under the said item and, therefore, on import, not liable to be charged with countervailing duty with reference to that item.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1