Mumbai Court December 1997 Judgments

Trans Freight Containers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

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...

Cce Vs. Veg Oil Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(75)LC112Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Respondent is absent and is unrepresented in spite of notice of hearing. There is no request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR.2. The short question is whether value of corrugated folded boxes used to pack 10 pouches, each containing 1kg. of vegetable product, is to be included or not in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector took a view against the assessee and the Collector (Appeals) took a view in favour of the assessee. The Department, being aggrieved, has filed this appeal.3. The question, as clarified by the Supreme Court in MRF. Ltd., and Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd., is whether such packing is necessary for the purpose of delivery in wholesale trade at the factory gate. The matter in this perspective has not been considered by either of the authorities. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh in accordance with law. ...

K.R. Steel Union Limited Vs. Commr. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT351Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the eligibility of Modvat credit on carbon block /brush under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants manufacture tin plate falling under Heading 72.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They availed of Modvat credit on carbon block/brush. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner took the view that carbon block did not fall within the definition of the term 'input' under Rule 57A of CERs and they cannot be said to be input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product viz. tin plates. He adjudicated the matter by his order dated 24-4-1991. The appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mumbai by the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the carbon blocks are not consumed in the way of anodes in the manufacturing process and hence he upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order.2. Shri Anil Balani, the ld. Counsel for the appellants produced befo...

Cce Vs. Dukes and Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(75)LC110Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals have been filed by the Department against the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector confirming certain demands made on the respondent.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of concentrates of soft drinks, was selling soft drinks to bottlers at certain prices. Price lists were being filed and duty was being paid on the approved prices.It was found that besides the price, the respondent was charging some amount as franchise charges for the use of the trade mark of the respondent by the buyer of the concentrate for the soft drink manufactured. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued adverting to the above averments and proposing demand of differential duty on the element of franchise charges. Overruling the contentions raised by the respondent, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demands which have been set aside by the Collector (Appeals).3. It is not known if for the relevant period there was any ag...

Cce Vs. Associated Capsules (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(75)LC109Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR for the appellant.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of empty gelatin capsules, was availing benefit of Notification No. 120/75. Subsequently, four show cause notices were issued stating that charges collected for forwarding and delivery had not been included in the invoice value and duty was payable thereon. On the respondent opposing the notices, the Assistant Collector dropped the demand. The Department moved the Collector (Appeals) against this order. Collector (Appeals) held that deduction for forwarding and delivery charges could not be granted and actual freight charges had not been proved. He also accepted the contention raised on behalf of the respondent in the course of submissions that erection charges should be deducted from the value.This order is being challenged by the Department. Apparently, the respondent has not preferred an appeal against the order, nor has the respondent fi...

Cloride India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT415Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard Shri Swaminathan, the ld. Consultant for the Appellants and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR. In the present appeal the issue is relating to valuation. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has given a finding that elements of expenses towards tunover tax, equalised freight, insurance on transport are deductible for the purpose of arriving at assessable value of the manufactured products in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But the Appellants are aggrieved by the further direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the percentage of these deductions should not be allowed to exceed 3.03%, based on the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals), that on the range at which the expenses stood in the past. We, however, are inclined to hold that this rider to the appellate order is not called for because in any case the Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered the deductions from the actuals for the period 1986-87 which are already avail...

Klockner Windsor India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cen. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT348Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector demanding duty on two grounds and imposing a penalty on the appellant.3. The first ground for which the Additional Collector demanded duty was that some items of machinery which the appellant manufactures could not be considered to be waste, within the meaning of Rule 57D because it did not arise in the course of manufacture. The appellants contention had been, and continues to be that the machines in question did not come up to its required standards and therefore could not be marketed. They are therefore in the nature of waste.4. The Departmental representative reiterates the reasoning of the Additional Collector that for something to be considered waste within the meaning of Rule 57D it has to arise in the course of manufacture of the finished product. The finished product itself cannot be waste.5. We are unable to accept this latter argument. Rule 57D refers to the "final product" which is defined in Rule 57A as finish...

S.H. Kelkar and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT418Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal relates to Modvat credit. The appellants manufacture perfumery base under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; a part of their finished product was being cleared to 100% Export Oriented Unit. The Department initiated proceedings against the appellants by issue of six Show Cause Notices for the period 28-5-1989 to 31-8-1991, on the ground that clearances for the 100% EOU will be hit by Rule 57C as it stood at the material time by which no Modvat credit is to be allowed if the final product is exempt from the whole of the duty or is chargeable to nil rate of duty.Rule 57C was subsequently amended from 1-3-1992 which specifically provided that it will not hit clearances to inter alia EOUs. The lower authorities in this case confirmed the demand of duty by holding that the appellants are not eligible for the Modvat credit on inputs used to the manufacture of final p...

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT347Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applications are by common applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 22.40 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 13.50 lakhs.2. Advocate for the applicant says that the major amount i.e. Rs.15 lakhs of credit is on capital goods such as dumper, earth removing, shifting and handling equipment and parts used to quarry lime stone, which was required for the manufacture of clinker into cement. He contends that the decisions of this Tribunal in A.C.C. v. C.C.E. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 415 followed in three other decisions, the Tribunal has held that explosives used to quarry lime stone would be inputs under Rule 57A, notwithstanding the fact emphasised in one of the decisions, the quarry was far away from the cement factory by explanation he says the capital goods used to quarry and transport lime stone would also be considered as inputs.3. A sum of Rs. 2.92 lakhs relates to structures and goods used for making structures he says that the Commissioner has erroneously disallowed that the structur...

B. R. Engineering Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1.We have heard both the parties. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case the learned CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer (AO in short) which she has mentioned at pages 25 to 27 of her order. He also submitted that her order in para 49 makes it clear that she had received one more report other than the one mentioned in para 48 of her order i.e., which is dt. 24th September, 1997. However, no opportunity was given to the assessee to give any clarification or to rebut whatever might have been alleged in these reports. In fact, even a copy of those remand reports were not given to the assessee. He further submitted that the last date of hearing given by the AO to the assessee was 25th July, 1997 whereas the appellate order mentions the date 24th September, 1997 as the date of the forwarding note by the Dy. CIT to the CIT(A). He again submitted that this clearly shows that the learned CIT(A) passed the order against the principles of n...