Mumbai Court September 2000 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ashok Organic Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC609
1. The appellant manufactures in its factory at Ankleshwar acetic acid using ethyl alcohol as input. It took money credit in terms of a notification under Rule 57K at Rs. 650 per kilolitre of the ethyl alcohol used. It cleared the acetic acid on payment of duty at its factory at Nandesari for manufacture of acetic anhydride cleared on payment of duty.2. Notice was issued to the appellant alleging that the exemption under Notification No. 217/86 for the goods captively consumed by it in its Nandesari factory should have been availed of. In the case money credit would not be available for the ethyl alcohol used, since the acetic acid for the manufacture of which it was used, would be cleared at nil rate of duty under notification.3. The assessee resisted the demand. It contended that the Board by its circular 33/33/94-CX, dated 04.05.1994, clarified that it is up to the assessee to not avail of the Notification 217/86 in respect of manufacture at one factory and used in another factory ...
Gujarat Agro Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC617
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the includibility in the assessable value of the beverage "Jive" manufactured either by Sugam Diary on behalf of the appellant or by the appellant (there is some dispute on this point) of charges calculated as freight by the appellant, not incurred on freight; charges for drinking straws supplied separately to the product from the buyers of the product and the charges from him of pallets used to pack aerates of beverages.2. The advocate for the appellant contends that the demand for duty contained in the notice dated 25.01.91 for clearance made in November 1986 to September 1989 is barred by limitation. The extended period contained in the proviso under Section 11A(1) of the Act will not be available, he says, because the appellant had disclosed to the department, by means of invoice enclosed to the RT 12 return, the fact or recovery of charges on these three counts. No suppression as alleged in the notice has taken place. The Collec...
Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT259Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in determining the assessable value of the medicaments manufactured by the appellant for the purpose of applying the Notification 245/83, the special excise duty payable on the goods should be deducted. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has not accepted the contention that special excise duty is also to be deducted.2. The Tribunal had occasion to consider the working of this notification in its decision in Ramsay Pharma v. CCE - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 448. It noted that the notification exempted that part of the duty which is in excess of the amount of duty calculated, as indicated in the notification. Paragraphs 4 and 5 which explains respectively the notification itself and the Tribunal's view as to how it should be worked.3. It would be noted that the Tribunal has said that the fact of the exemption must be arrived at by taking the fixed retail price, treating it as the cum-duty price, deducting the duty p...
Lata Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC153
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 13,457 and penalty imposed on the applicant.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the view of the Asst. Commissioner confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Benefit of Notification 175/86 will not be available consequent upon its amendment by Notification 55/92.4. The effect of the amendment was that the manufacturer who availed of the benefit in terms of Clause (a) of paragraph 4 would no longer be entitled to the benefit if it did not produce small scale registration.The contention of the applicant is that it availed of benefit under Clause (b) of paragraph 4.5. The declaration filed by the applicant to first avail of the notification was in 1991-92. This would only be under Clause (a) of paragraph 4. There is nothing to show that the applicant availed of this notification in any of the preceding years.6. We therefore do not prima facie find a case for holding that the applicant was entitled to the exemption....
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Mayo India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT192Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the mode of valuation of samples of the patent and proprietary medicaments manufactured by the respondent.2. In the order impugned in the appeal the Collector has accepted the stand of the assessee that the valuation of these goods has to be based on their cost of manufacture, and has not accepted the department's contention that it ought to be derived from the assessable value of comparable goods sold by the assessee. The appeal filed by the department seeks to have the value determined on the basis of value of the comparable goods.3. The order of the Collector does not furnish any reason for his conclusion that the prices shown on the physician samples are clearly distinguishable. Valuation of goods which cannot be valued in terms of Clause (a), sub- section (1) of section 4 is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Valuation Rules. It appears to us that the proper rule that would apply is rule 7. Rule 4 obviousl...
Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Matchwell Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT785Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the view of the Asstt. Commissioner that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the Notification 16/94 as amended by Notification 74/94 for the compounded rubber manufactured by it and captively consumed in the manufacture of rubber plates and sheets, which were in turn captively used in the manufacture of rubberised cylinders.2. The grounds in the appeals are that the condition in serial number 6 of the table to the notification that the compounded rubber is used in the manufacture of goods falling within chapter 40 has not been complied with since the rubberised cylinder, which is the final product, is classifiable not in chapter 40 but in chapter 85. This point was explained in detail by the departmental representative.3. In his two decisions, one in which the present assessee was the appellant and the other in which it was the respondent, (appeals E/A4289/94-C and E/1037/92-B1) the Tribunal has ...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. M.D. Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC603
1. M.D. Corporation, one of the respondents to this appeal by the Commissioner imported 10 consignments of polyethylene totalling 200 metric tons. It had filed 10 bills of entry in the Bombay Custom House for clearance of these goods in advance to their arrival. Subsequent to such filing and before the actual arrival of the goods, the customs house received a request from the agents of the vessel, the ships carrying these goods for amendment in the manifest seeking to change the name of the importer from M.D. Corporation to Relaxo Plastics on the ground that the goods have been sold in the high seas by M.D.Corporation to Relaxo Plastics. This amendment was permitted. Relaxo Plastics thereafter filed bill of entry for clearance of these goods and produced the advance licence on the basis of which it claimed clearance without payment of duty under appropriate exemption notification. Before clearance could be effected against this licence, information was received by customs house that a...
Raj Rayon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC601
1. In the two orders impugned before us, the Commissioner has held that Raj Rayon and Yashasvi Yarn Ltd, the two assessees in appeal before us, were liable to pay duty on the intermingled yarn made by them and confirmed the duty demanded on this score. He has, in addition, confiscated the plant and machinery of these two assessees, imposed penalties on them as well as on Sushil Kumar Kanodia, their common director. These three are in appeal before us.2. The Commissioner agrees that the process carried out by the assessees is intermingling of yarn. He says, "I find that the unit had manufactured siya silk yarn through the process of intermingling. In the instant case, two single yarns get intermingled by the process of intermingling/air-mangling through air-jet winding machine". He finds that Note 3 to Chapter 54 of the Tariff has been rightly invoked in the notices to show cause. He says that by the process undertaken by the assessee, "the initial forms of the feeder yarn is converted...
Sandoz (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT196Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III made in Or-der-in-Original No. 64/94-Collr., dated 16-12-1994 whereunder he denied Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 31,19,418/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lacs.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of patent or proprietary (P or P) medicines classifiable under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They utilised certain raw materials as inputs in the manufacture of the said P or P medicines. During the process of such manufacture of the P or P medicine, certain bulk drugs classifiable under Chapter 29 come into existence as intermediate products. As far back in 1987 the appellants filed declaration indicating therein that the raw materials as inputs, bulk drugs as intermediate product and P or P medicines as final products. A show cause notice was issued on 3-4-1992 denying the Modvat credit on turn over of Rs. 29.80 lacs in respect of the exported products and Rs. 1....
Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT256Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals are against the common order of the Commissioner ordering confiscation of goods manufactured by the assessee under Rule 173Q with an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-, imposing a penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of Rs. 1.00 lacs on the assessee and under Rule 209 A on Venkat Kanada, Deputy General Manager of the assessee (appellant in appeal E/2785/98) of Rs 25,000/-, and ordering confiscation of land and building with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/-.2. The action has been resorted to by the Commissioner for the reason that the quantities of telephone cable manufactured by the appellant, valued at Rs. 11.34 crores approx, on which duty payable was stated to be Rs. 2.00 crores approx were not entered in the RG1 register. The Commissioner had noted that this register has not been entered for 21 days. The representative of the appellant does not dispute the non-maintenance of the entries but contends that the provisions of Rule ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »