CHENNAI  II  COMMISSIONERATE

 Law News for January 2002
S.No Forum Order-in-Appeal No. & Date Subject in Brief Decision Status
1 Commissioner (A) 229/2001 (M-II) 23/11/2001 Under valuation of goods sent to Sister Unit Held that the value adoped is correct  - favouring assessee Accepted on  17/01/2001
CEGAT CASES -  "NIL"

 Law News for December 2001
1 Commissioner (A) 206/2001 (M-II)  23/11/2001 Non inclusion of warehousing charges collected prior to 28/09/96 in the A.V Held to be not includible - favouring Assessee Accepted on 24/12/2001
2 Commissioner (A) 302/2001 (M-II) 26/11/2001 Non-production of rewarehousing certificates within the stipulated period Held that substantive portion of law has been complied with and hence dropped demand of duty -                      favouring assessee Accepted on 24/12/2001
3 Commissioner (A) 174/2001 (M-II) 30/08/2001 / 15/11/2001 Classification of Suds Neem Dog Soap - Whether under Chapter Sub Heading 3401.19 or 3401.11 Held that Suds Neem Soap is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 3401.11 - favouring assessee Appeal filed on 26/12/2001
CEGAT ORDERS - NIL
Orders issued by Commissioner (A) & CEGAT
For the Month of June  2001
1 Commissioner (A) 79/2001 (M-II) dated 10/04/2001 Eligibility to notification No. 75/94 dated 29/03/1994 for clearance of 'Mahabhringol' oil at 'NIL' rate of duty Held that the assessee is not eligible for exemption  Favouring Department Accepted
2 Commissioner (A) 85/2001(M-II) 10/04/2001 Eligibiity to Notification No. 5/99 dated 28/02/1999 for items cleared for use as pollution control equipments Held that the assessee is eligible for exemption - Favouring assessee Accepted
3 Commissioner (A) 20/2001 (M-II) (D) 08/03/2001 Classification of 'Sprochets' intended for M.V. - Whether under chapter 8483.90 or 8708/8714 Held that the item is classifiable under chapter 87 - Favouring Department Accepted
4 Commissioner (A) 25/2001 (M-II) (D) 08/03/2001 Whether notional interest of 10% is to be added to the Assessable Value of the goods when cleared by job-worker on behalf of manufacturer to the Customer. Held that the interest need not be added - Favouring Assessee Accepted
CEGAT CASES -  "NIL"
1 Commissioner (A) 51/2001 (M-II) dt. /03/2001 Non inclusion of profits earned on account of freight charges in the Assessable Value Held to be non-includible-Favourable to assessee Appeal filed on 30/04/2001
2 Commissioner (A) 152/2000 (M-II) dt. 26/12/2000 Non-inclusion of warehousing surcharges and freight surcharges in the Assessable Value for sale from upcountry depots on the pretext that the assessee adopted the sale price at Chennai depot which is nearer to the factory Held to be includible by the proper interpretation of the term of "Place of removal" asappearing in the amended Sec. 4 of the Act. - Favourable to Department Accepted on 09/04/2001
3 Commissioner (A) 34/2000 (M-II) (D) dt. 22/12/2000 Non-Payment of duty on All-castings captively used in the manufacture of final products which are exempted Held that duty is payable - Favourable to Department Accepted on 16/04/2001
4 Commissioner (A) 10,11 & 12/2001 (M-II) dt. 22/01/2001 Classification of front end structure-Whether under 8707 or under 8708 Held that it is classifiable under 8707 -           Favourable to Department Accepted on 02/04/2001
1 CEGAT 282-284/2001 dt. 16/02/2001 Whether duty paid on the waste plastic and scrap arising during the course of processing of the final goods can be taken as  MODVAT when the same was retained in the factory and later cleared to the job worker without payment Tribunal held that taking the credit back will nullify the initial payment of duty on theinputs and hence on the subsequent removal of the same duty shall have to be paid distinguishing the case from the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wyeth Laboratories Ltd vs. CCE, Bombay 2000 (120) ELT 218 (T) Accepted on 02/05/2001
2 CEGAT 294/2001 dt. 16/02/2001 Whether modvat availed inputs goods and capital goods can be lent to another factory by clearing the same without payment of duty Held that such goods are to be cleared only on payment of duty or on permission under Rule 57F/57S to job worker.  There is no concept of lending the goods without payment of duty Accepted on 02/05/2001
~MARCH-2001
1 Commissioner (A) 03/2000     (M-II)  dt. 16/01/2001 Classification of Jute felt whether under CSH 5602.90 or 5907.90  Held that they are classifiable under csh 5602.90 by holding that the HSN note definiing 'felt' does not say that felt is produced only or exclusively out of wool or animal hair or mixture of these fibres with other natural fibres.  Further reliance was placed on Sl.No.107 of notification 5/99 CE dated 26/02/1999 where jute felt has been exempted by giving chapter heading 5602.                                                                Favourable to the assessee Accepted
2 Commissioner (A) 12/2001       (M-II) (D)  dt. 24/01/2001 Non-Inclusion of Inspection charges by third party in the Assessable Value Held that Inspection charges by third party is not includible                                                         Favourable to the assessee Appeal filed
CEGAT CASES -  "NIL"
1 Commissioner (A) 112/2000 (M-II) dt. 28/09/2000 Whether the assessee is entitled to the credit of Modvat earned on transformer oil (2710.90) and trichloro etylen(2903.90) when the oil waste are cleared from the factory on sale  Held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit and the demand for duty on the said clearances is sustainable.   Favourable to Department Accepted
2 Commissioner (A) 117/2000 (M-II) dt. 20/10/2000 Classification of unmounted brake linings having a basis of glass fibre whether under heading 7014.00 or 8708 as claimed by the assessee Held that the subject goods have been rightly classified under CET 7014.  Favourable to Department Accepted
3 Commissioner (A) 15/2000 (M-II) (D)dt. 22/09/2000 Whether Control Panels are eligible to the benefit of exemption  provided against Sl.No.12 to  notification 205/88 CE dt. 25/05/88 covering wind mills, part of wind mills and any specifically designed devices which run on wind mill.   Held that the same are rightly classifiable under 8502 and not under 8537 as contended by Revenue and entitled to the benefit of exemption.  Favourable to Assessee Accepted
4 Commissioner (A) 122/2000 M-II dt. 14/11/2000 Whether cut lengths of  nylon mono filament yarn of diameters  210,330,420,630,840,1050 etc are eligible to the benefit against Sl.No. 119 of Notification 5/98 CE dt. 2.6.98  as since cut lengths cannot be regarded as yarn to extend the benefit of the Notification Held that the assissee is entitled to the benefit of the Notification as Heading 5404 would also cover cut lengths as per HSN explanatory Notes. Favourable to Assessee Accepted
5 Commissioner (A) 125/2000 (M-II) dt. 21/11/2000 Classification of steel fabricates structure as per specific design and drawings prescribed under the Indian Boilers Act, Whether under 7308.90  or as parts of boilers under 8402.90 as claimed by the assessee Held that the steel fabricator sturctue is rightly classifiable under 7308.90 and not under 8402.90.    Favourable to Assessee Accepted
6 Commissioner (A) 115/2000 (M-II) dt. 18/10/2000 Whether the heating elements captively consumed for the Manufacture of immersion heater are exempted from payment of duty under Notification 56/93 CE dt. 01/03/93 having been used in the Manufacture of electrical appliances Held that heating element is not marketable as such and therefore cannot be subjected to the levy.  It was further held that the larger period of limitation is not invokable in this case. Favourable to Assessee Accepted
7 Commissioner (A) 22/2000 (M-II) (D) dt. 15/11/2000 Classification of various types of transformer coils whether under 8504 as parts of TV/radio sets under or 8529 as claimed by Revenue  Held that the impugned goods are rightly classifiable under 8504 only. Favourable to Assessee Accepted
8 Commissioner (A) 123/2000/ (M-II) dt. 21/11/2000 Refunds filed under Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules.  As Commissioner had held certain part of the refunds earlier sanctioned under this rule as erroneous the claims were restricted to the extent permitted by the Commissioner, on a request from the assessee reserving their right to claim the balance based on the outcome of the appeal file by them against the order of the Commissioner before CEGAT.  Party succeeded in appeal and the reference filed by the Revenue was also rejected.  However a revision application filed before the Hon'ble High Court is pending.  The AC however rejected the claim on ground that his earlier order was not appealed against.  Held that the assessee is entilted to the refund as the order of the Tribunal had not been stayed.  Also held that the order of rejection of the subsequent claim for refund for the balance is not proper and legal.    Favourable to Assessee Accepted
9 Commissioner (A) 127/2000 (M-II) dt. 21/11/2000 Whether an unit registered under DGTD Manufacturing exempted final products is liable to pay duty on the ferrous waste and scrap obtained during the course of manufacture in the light of Notification No.1/93 dt.28/2/93 as then existing and whether the extended period of limitation would be applicable to the case Held that the assessee would not be eligible for the SSI exemption nor would they be entitled to Modvat credit as their final products is not being subject to payment of duty.  Extended period of limitation also held to be applicable.   Favourable to Department Accepted
10 Commissioner (A) 128/2000 (M-II) dt. 23/11/2000 Whether ice cream machinery falling under CET 8418.10 not covered by Rule 57Q eligible for capital goods Modvat Credit on the ground that it is necessary and essential for the Manufacture of ice cream Held that the impugned goods are not eligible for the capital goods Modvat credit. Favourable to Department Accepted
1 CEGAT 1397/2000 Dt. O5/10/2000 Eligibility of exemption under notification 175/86 to goods bearing the brand name of a foreign company Following the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Namtech System & Others Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore (2000(36) RLT 35-CEGAT-LB held that the benefit of SSI exemption not extendable on such goods.                                                                                Favourable to Department Accepted
2 CEGAT 1270/2000 dt. 06/09/2000  Data acquisition and control systems whether classifiable under heading 9032 or under 8471 as claimed by Revenue Held that the same is rightly classifiable under 9032.  Favourable to Assessee Accepted
3 CEGAT 1338/2000 dt. 26/09/2000 Whether jigs and fixtures are excisable and if so whether eligible for benefit of exemption notification 220/86CE dt. 2/4/86 Held that Marketability of the goods is established in this case and hence they are excisable.  As the subject goods are cleared outside the factory to the job worker not eligible for the benefit of Notification 220/86CE as the exception to the Notification had to be construed strictly. Favourable to Department Accepted
4 CEGAT 1249/2000 Dt. 4.9.2000 Whether notional Profit of 10% is to be added for determining the assessable value when goods are captively consumed interms  of Rule 6(b) (ii) of the CE Valuation Rules, 1975  when assessee had not earned any profit during that particular year. Held that notional profit of 10% need not be added as the Rule provide inclusion of profit if any earned by the assessee.  Favourable to Assessee  
5 CEGAT 1399/2000 dt. 05/10/2000 Classification of aluminium water tanks manufactured as per drawings and technical specifications of railway meant for coaches whether under 8607 or under 7611 as contended by Revenue   Based on CBEC circular NO.31/93 dt. 22/11/93 held the same rightly classifiable under 8607.    Favourable to Assessee Accepted
6 CEGAT 1521/2000 dt. 07/11/2000 Whether warranty charges and advertisement expenses on computers marketed thro' the sister concern of the assessee is includible in the Assessable value. Held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, they are includible in the assessable value.     Favourable to Department Accepted
7 CEGAT 1524/2000 dt. 06/11/2000 Whether affixing the sticker containing the name of the foreign company registered in India and holding SSI registration would disentitle the benefit of exemption under notification No.175/86 Held that the benefit of SSI exemption cannot be disallowed in such cases.   Favourable to Assessee Accepted
8 CEGAT 1525/2000 dt. 06/11/2000 Clearance of Motor, gears, fans, heaters, pneumatic temperature recording controller cleared in CKD condition as complete system but dispatched in different convoy trucks for purpose of transportation whether to be classified as system as a whole or to be assessed as individual parts. Held the same to be assessed as a conveyor system and not as specific parts.   Favourable to Assessee Accepted
1 COMMR (A) 134/2000 23/11/2000 Classification of Mahabringol oil whether under CSH 3305.99 or 3003.3 Held that Mahabringol oil is classificable under CSH 3305.99 ACCEPTED
2 CHENNAI  COMMR (A) 151/2000 26/12/2000 Classification of gear box whether under CSH 8708 or 8483.90 Favourable to Department Held that gear box is classificable under CSH 8483.90 - Favourable to Assessee Review taken
3 CHENNAI COMMR (A) 31/2000 23/11/2000 Abnormal variation in price between sales by sole selling agent and to others adopted for branded goods Held that price at which sole selling agents sell should be A.V. - Favourable to Department Accepted
4 CEGA T 3 Member Bench CHENNAI Final order No. 1557/2000 dt. 21/10/2000 Eligibility to exemption to Cement floor tiles under Sl.No. 4 of the Table annexed to notification No. 59/90 CE dt. 20/03/1990 Held that Floor tiles are covered by the exclusion clause against Sl.No.4 of the Table annexed  to the notifn. No. 59/90 CE dt. 20/03/1990 and hence exemption cannot be extended. ACCEPTED
5 CEGA T 3 Member Bench CHENNAI Final Order No. 1634/2000 dt. 28/11/2000 Whether penalty need be imposed when the assessee paid the duty even before issue of Show Cause Notice for imposition of penalty alone when  there is no allegation of ‘mens rea’ Held though ‘mens rea’ is not a stipulated ingredient essential in some of the clauses of R 173Q, visit of penalty would depend upon its existence.  Hence  imposition of penalty was set aside. Accepted