Mumbai Court December 1997 Judgments
Cc Vs. Sarabhai Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC342Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 31.5.1994.2. Learned Departmental Representative stated that the respondents had filed 9 refund claims on the ground that Propylene Glycol is a 'Bulk Drug' and as per notification No. 77/86 and 234/86, the duty is chargeable 60% + 40% + CVD Nil. However, their contention was not accepted on the ground that: (i) the Propylene Glycol does not have any therapeutic value or Prophylactic value. Thus it does not merit consideration as drug. (ii) the condensed chemical dictionary shows that these items have multifarious uses and these are not known in literature or trade parlance as drug intermediate and it does not have major use as an intermediate in the manufacture of any drug. (iii) the propylene glycol is mainly used as a solvent. Hence, the original assessment is in order.3. Learned Counsel stated in reply that they have a factory at Baroda, manufacturing, inter alia, medicaments. They h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Wockhardt Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)(59)ECC390
1. The Respondents manufacture P or P medicines and filed a classification list for their product probofex capsule and liquid claiming classification under Item 1B of the old Central Excise Tariff and claiming exemption under Notification No. 17/70. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector felt that the product does not merit classification under T.I. 1B but it would be classifiable under T.I. 68 and issued show cause notice for the purpose. The Assistant Collector considered the reply to the show cause notice and found that in their own "Medical Times" January and March, 1996 their product probofex is mentioned. The Assistant Collector held that the product probofex is not an item of food going by the general usage of the term. He also did not accept the certificate given by the Food and Drug Control Authority that the product will not fall under the category of drug. He referred to their own "Medical Times" journal where the product was recommended for building up haemoglobin with a s...
Tag this Judgment!Abir Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT406Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant Abir Chemicals manufacture S.O. Dyes falling under Chapter 32 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and dye intermediates falling under Chapter 29 CETA. On 21-6-1996 officers of Central Excise, Vapi Division I & II visited their factory and checked their stock with statutory records. The following discrepancies were detected: (i) 32528.19 Kg. of Several dye intermediates were found in excess than recorded balance in statutory production register RG1; (iii) 33,421.1 Kg. of different input/raw-materials were found in excess than the recorded balance in Modvat credit account RG 23A Part I; (iv) 497.68 Kg. of J. Acid was not physically available although the said quantity was shown as in stock in RG 1; (v) 8000 Kg. of Para Cresidine was not physically available though shown as in stock in Modvat credit account RG 23A Part I; (vi) 5176.895 Kg. of K Acid was found short when compared with recorded balance in RG 23A Part I account; 2. The S.O. dyes, dye intermediates, and d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT310Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No.P-230/93, dated 8th October, 1993. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) had directed the Assistant Collector to verify that there was no compulsion on the appellant (the respondent before us) to buy any number of cassettes, diaries etc. and the once the list furnished by the respondent is found to be correct, and there is good number of dealers to whom no such sales have been made and once there is no co-relation between the number of vehicles sold and the diaries or video cassettes ordered for, the amount of debit note should not be included in the assessable value. Hence this appeal.2. It is contended by the Departmental Representative that the finding of the Collector (Appeals) is wrong in law inasmuch as it goes contrary to the decision of the Bombay Tyre International -1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C).3. We have considered the submissions ...
Tag this Judgment!F.G.P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)(75)LC89Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR and perused and papers.2. The dispute in the appeal is whether interest @ 18% per annum on advances received by appellant from certain customers under contracts with reference to which price lists No. 321 and 323 were filed is liable to be included in the assessable value of fibre glass crown RI3 glass wool mat manufactured and cleared by appellant. It is now well settled that in order that such interest could be added to the assessable value it must be shown that the fact of receiving an advance had some connection with an affected price. The matter was not considered by the lower authorities from this angle. The memorandum of appeal states that out of a large number of customers, appellant collected advance only from a few customers as security for the due performance of the contracts and that in many cases prices charged to other customers ...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Nitrite Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT49Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this case proceedings were initiated against the Appellants for denying Modvat credit of Rs. 4,31,360/- on the ground that it has been wrongly availed of on the total quantity of ammonia used in the manufacture of Nitric Acid during the period April 1986 to August 1986 under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules. The Department's case is that the Appellants manufacture Nitric Acid. It was alleged that the Appellants have taken credit on the input ammonia used in the manufacture of Nitric Acid which is assessed to 'nil' rate of duty and this Nitric Acid is ultimately used in the manufacture of their final products Ammonium Nitrate. It was, alleged that as per Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules the credit allowed on any input need not be denied on the ground that an intermediate product has come into existence during the course of manufacture of the final product and that such intermediate product is for the time being exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Bu...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Usha Prestressed Sleepers Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT527Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue in this appeal is whether the assessee operating under the Modvat credit scheme can take credit on inputs received into his factory after a lapse of 6 months from the date of receipt or goods.The Respondents manufacture excisable goods under Chapter 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was found that Respondents had availed Modvat on one of the inputs namely MCI inserts which are used in the manufacture of final products i.e. railway sleepers and in the month of January, 1989 they had taken Modvat credit on the said input amounting to Rs. 5,79,811/-. It was found that this has been taken by the Respondents belatedly after the expiry of 6 months from the receipt of the inputs into their factory. Proceedings were, therefore initiated for recovery of the same and the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner passed an order dated 10-9-1991 confirm ing the demand in the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad passed the impugned order allowing the Responden...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Jolly Electricals Inds.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-1997
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT669Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Respondents are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods falling under two headings namely 85.25 of 90.89 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing of Small Scale Industries exemption under Notification 175/86. The Department sought to demand duty from them on the ground that they have exceeded first clearance value of Rs. 30 lakhs by totalling the value of clearances of both the excisable goods.The duty demand was raised on the ground that they are not entitled for exemption because under exemption once they exceeded the clearance value of Rs. 30 lakhs collectively for both the headings. After paying the duty under protest they filed a refund claim with the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner on the ground that they were entitled to clear goods under exemption up to Rs. 15 lakhs value for each of the excisable goods even though they might have exceeded the clearance value of Rs. 15 lakhs in one of the heading. The A.C. passed the order granting the refund. The jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sharp Industrial Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT503Tri(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard Shri S.V. Singh, ld. JDR, who has reiterated the grounds of appeal and contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in extending the benefit of transitional provisions under Rule 57H for taking of Modvat credit to the Respondents in this case. The Department case is that the Respondents had on their own taken credit of the stock lying with them after filing declaration without getting permission granted by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for the purpose under Rule 57H. The taking of such credit therefore is at variance with the statutory provisions of that Rule.2. Shri Nitin N. Mehta the Authorised Representative for the Respondents, however submits that the respondents did apply for transitional provisions for taking credit along with their declaration and because of the delay, the grant in the permission they had taken credit and the ld. Consultant cited the Tribunal decision in the case of Aqueous Victuals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1996 ...
Tag this Judgment!Trans Freight Containers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT410Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Trans Freight Containers Ltd., the appellant imported a consignment declared in the invoice accompanying it to be consisting of open top container cover and T.I.R. rope. On examining these goods, the Customs found that it consisted of 303 sheets of tarpaulin having eyelets at the edges. The tarpaulin ropes also imported were to be used for the purpose of fastening on the tops of open top containers so as to protect the cargo contained in them from the element as also from theft. In view of the nature of the goods, the Customs Department was of the view that they were consumer goods as defined in para 7(ii) of the Policy 1992-97, and could not be cleared under Open General Licence (OGL). On the objection being communicated to the notice of the importer, it waiver written notice. However, its representative was heard. It took the stand that the goods were imported against a specific contract to form part of the open top containers which it manufactured for export. They were ther...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »