Sarabhai M. Chemicals v. Commissioner of Central Excise
CEGAT INTRODUCTION The appellant manufactured Chlormequat Chloride (Cycocel). Before 1 March 1986: the product was classified under Tariff Item 68; exemption was claimed under Notification No. 234/82. After introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: the appellant classified the product under Heading 3808.10 as a pesticide. The Department later alleged that: Cycocel was actually […]
Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excis
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The appellant, Cosmic Dye Chemical, manufactured two products: Rapidogens, which were fully exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 180/61. Naphthol ASG, which was dutiable. The assessee claimed the benefit of the Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 71/78 for Naphthol ASG by declaring that the aggregate value of […]
Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. L.M.P. Precision Engineering Co.
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The respondent manufactured water well drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis. For the period 1 March 1986 to 29 February 1988, the respondent classified the goods under Tariff Heading 84.30. On 1 March 1988, the Central Government issued an exemption notification granting benefit to drilling rigs falling under Heading […]
Densons Pultretaknik v. Commissioner of Central Excise
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The appellant manufactured: Epoxy Cast Components such as crotch belly, bushings, etc.; and insulating fittings for electrical machines and equipment. In the classification list filed in 1987, the appellant classified: Epoxy Cast Components under Sub-heading 3926.90 as articles of plastics. Insulating fittings under Sub-heading 8547.00. While scrutinising the classification list, […]
Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
CESTAT, Mumbai INTRODUCTION M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. (AEL) undertook job work for M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The job worker manufactured: Magneto Assemblies Transmission Shafts using raw materials supplied by Bajaj Auto. The Department alleged that while computing assessable value, the job worker failed to include various elements supplied by Bajaj Auto, including: lower priced raw […]
Naresh Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Calcutta High Court INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Naresh Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in coordinating and supervising coal supply and related activities. The Service Tax Department issued several Show Cause Notices covering different periods between 2002 and 2011, demanding service tax on activities such as: cargo handling; transportation of coal; processing of pyroxenite; and […]
Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs. CCE
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The appellant manufactured two categories of goods: Goods falling under Tariff Item 14E, which were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 111/78 if the annual turnover remained below ₹5 lakhs. Goods falling under Tariff Item 68, which were completely exempt from excise duty. Since the turnover of goods under Tariff […]
Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India
Calcutta High Court INTRODUCTION The Department issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23 April 2010 demanding service tax for various services rendered during the period up to 28 February 2005. The Department invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 alleging suppression of facts. The assessee challenged the notice […]
Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Collector of Central Excise
INTRODUCTION The appellant manufactured two products: Rapidogens Naphthol ASG Rapidogens enjoyed complete exemption under Notification No. 180/61. Naphthol ASG was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 71/78, provided the aggregate value of excisable goods manufactured during the preceding financial year did not exceed the prescribed monetary limit. While filing the declaration for claiming SSI exemption, […]
Selvi Paper Mills Ltd Vs. CCE
CESTAT INTRODUCTION During investigation, the Department seized 25 documents from the appellant. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued. The Department supplied copies of only 9 documents, treating them as Relied Upon Documents (RUDs). The remaining 16 seized documents were retained by the Department on the ground that they were not relied upon for issuing […]