Mumbai Court May 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gokul Metallizers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT753Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present appeal was filed with CEGAT Bombay on 16-9-1994. The date of receipt of the communication of the impugned order was shown as 17-6-1994. Prima facie therefore the appeal was filed within the period stipulated in Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Shri H.H.Dave, ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents during hearing on 23-12-1998 stated that the date stamp on the impugned order itself shows receipt by the Commissioner on 14-6-1994. He submits that in the absence of an application for condonation of delay, the appeal is barred by limitation.2. To settle the dispute the Commissioner was advised to file an affidavit.3. Today Shri K.M. Patwari, the ld. DR placed before me, the affidavit signed by the Assistant Commissioner to the effect that the order in appeal was in fact received on 17-6-1994.4. The impression on the date stamp was verified by both sides and by me which 'shows unmistakably that the date of receipt was 17-4-1994. In terms of Section 35B(2) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Himson Textile Engineering Inds. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT751Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Although, this case was posted for admission under 2nd proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal after hearing Shri Choubey, JDR for the revenue.The appellants were not present.2. The single issue for determination is, whether a machine used for embossing the serial number on various parts of a textile machinery could be termed as capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q or not The original and the appellate authority have devoted considerable space and time in discussing the available case laws before arrival at the conclusion that the operation conducted by the machinery did not qualify under the term 'capital goods'. The Commissioner (Appeals) summed it as saying "it does not play any part in the manufacture of the finished goods".3. I observe that the phrase used in Rule 57Q is "processing".Embossing a part with serial number is a process undertaken by the manufacturer. Even the phrase "manufacture" includes all processes...
Tag this Judgment!Konkan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT680Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants were not present. On the last occasions also the appellants were not present in spite of notice. Appeal is therefore taken up for disposal ex parte on merits.2. The appellants manufactured talcum powder the first packing was tins. 24/72 tins were packed in a corrugated box. The deduction of corrugated boxes was sought in computing the assessable value. The Assistant Collector citing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International -1983 (14) E.L.T 1896 held that cardboard packing was a normal packing and disallowed the deduction. In the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) upheld the denial citing the Ponds India Ltd. judgment of the Supreme Court.3. In the appeal memorandum the plea is maintained that the secondary packing is for protecting the goods and not for making the goods marketable.4. We have considered the submissions. The talcum powder is not sold in retail at the factory gate but is sold to wholesale buyers. In the wholesale trade the...
Tag this Judgment!Paras Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT662Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the collector demanding duty from, and imposing penalty on the appellant. The Collector has found in his order that the appellant short paid duty on fabrics processed by it on various counts.2. We shall consider each of these counts one by one. The first count is that the cost of the grey fabrics which were sent by its owners to the appellant firm for processing was misdeclared, in the declarations which those owners were required to furnish the appellants, processors in terms of notification 305/77. The contention by the advocate for the appellant in this regard is that any such misdeclaration was made, not by the appellant, but by the person who sent the gray fabrics. This is what the Collector has recorded. The only allegation against the appellant in this regard is that the appellant failed to receive and/or ascertain the correct value. Therefore, he says, the extended period contained under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A would ...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Enterprises Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT665Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Each of the appellants imported a consignment of fax machines. The importation in each case was made in terms of import licence, although transferred to the appellant. Each of these licences was all additional licences issued under the import policy for the period 1985-88.Paragraph 118 of the import policy of 1988-91 provided that additional licences issued to export trading houses prior to 1988, issued after 1-4-1988 on exports made during 1986-87 or earlier will be eligible for the endorsement for import of non-OGL capital goods [other than those covered by Appendix I, Part A(8)] allowed against such licence in the import policy 1985-88, subject to the condition laid down therein, provided the items sought to be imported against such items continued to be non-OGL other than those covered by Appendix I, Part A(8) under this policy.2. Each of the licences in question contained an endorsement stated to be made under paragraph 8 of the policy by the licensing authority permitting int...
Tag this Judgment!Glass Graphics (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC778
1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the appeal memorandum and other papers and heard the departmental representative.2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the declared assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant, a job worker was required to be enhanced by the margin of profit of 10%.The Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the view of the Assistant Collector that unless it is established that the job charges for the manufacture include the margin of profit, they should be considered to be the "cost of labour" and the profit is to be added. It is the appellant's contention that the charges include the profit and therefore their addition separately is not called for.CCE v. Crown Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1999 (111) ELT 150, had held that, ordinarily the charges claimed and collected by a job worker who supplied the raw material and components for conversion into finished articles would necessarily include the margin of pro...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Exports Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT472Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant filed a shipping bill for export to Egypt of 69 AM/FM generators and 36 digital IC tester being supplied to Government of that country under a contract. These goods were manufactured on the order of the appellant by M/s. Aplab Industries Limited. The goods were exported under the claim for drawback.2. The department issued a notice proposing to deny drawback claimed, confiscate the goods and impose a penalty on the ground that the number of the drawback schedule had been wrong declared in the shipping bill which constituted the claim for drawback. According to the department the serial number 8503 of the Schedule, mentioned in the shipping bill, apply only to electrical generators and would not apply to the goods being exported which were instruments for testing and measuring frequency response and other parameters of communication equipment. The appellant, in the course of the proceedings before the Commissioner withdrew its claim for drawback, if the department was ...
Tag this Judgment!Parda Motors Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT200Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These three appeals have common facts and arise out of the same impugned order. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. The Customs Officers searched the premises of M/s. Parda Motors who are dealing with old and used diesel engines and seized 54 diesel engines. Show cause notice was issued subsequently alleging that these goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and that penalties under Section112 was imposable on the firm M/s. Parda Motors as well as two partners thereof viz. Kayamali M. Pardawala and Asgarali M. Pardawala. The Commissioner confiscated the engines but permitted their redemption on payment of fine and imposed penalties on the two partners.3. We have heard Shri D.H. Shah, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Deepak Kumar for the revenue.4. Before the Commissioner the claim of the appellant was that used diesel engines were not notified under Section123 of the Act nor were they notified in terms of Ch. IVA ...
Tag this Judgment!Turnwel Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT587Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These four appeals are taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving diposit.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him on the ground that the appellant did not comply with the order passed on the stay application.3. The Addl. Commissioner adjudicating upon the show cause notice issued to these persons had in his order [which was in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)] found that the benefit of Notification 175/86 would not be available. His order appears to say that the three units Turnwel Products, Tacrown Products and Rapid Inds. are not separate entities, but "dummy unit, which are not financially or legally independent." 4. After having said this, the Commissioner demands duty, without indicating which is the true manufacturer and which are the dummy units. The demand for duty does not specify who is to pay the duty, nor does his order indicates who is the true manufacturer of the goods. He has also imposed penalties upon each of th...
Tag this Judgment!Narmada Chemator Petrochemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT468Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the stay application was called out it appeared that the issue being covered by a CEGAT judgment, the main appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. This was done by granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 6,10,580/-and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. The appellants received steam through pipeline on which the suppliers had paid duty, and took Modvat credit thereupon. The credit was denied on the ground that the steam was exempted under notification 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 as amended and that a manufacturer could not pay duty in spite of the exemption merely to create Modvat benefit for their buyer. This denial was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) placing reliance on the Board's circular F. No. 93/13/90-CX-3 (No.2/91-CX., dated 4-1-1991). Hence the appeal.(T) (Everest Converters v. CCE) the Tribunal in identical circumstances, after examining the cited circular, had held that where there was a notification it was not obligatory on a manufacturer to avail its ben...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »