Mumbai Court December 2001 Judgments

Jindal Texofab Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty demand of Rs. 77,702/- has been confirmed against the appellants who are the manufacturers of processed fabrics falling under Chapters 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 on the basis of the annual production capacity of the factory determined as per the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors' Annual Capacity Determination Rule, 1998 and penalty of equal amount of duty has been imposed, and in addition a penalty of Rs. 60,500/- has been imposed for delayed payment of duty for the months of April and May, 1999 respectively. Interest has already been demanded by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order.2. It is the contention of the appellants that their claim for abatement in respect of Yamuna Stenter and Artos Stentor has not been considered by the Commissioner who has only considered the claim for abatement in respect of other 3 Hot Air Stenter. It is their further contention that penalty of Rs. 1,60,500/- can not be sustained as the penalty has been i...

Span Diagnostics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Span Diagnostics Ltd. were manufacturing goods falling under Chapters 30, 35, & 38 of the CETA 1985. They filed a Classification List on 9.3.93 for various products. Two groups of products were claimed to fall under Heading 3002.00. The text of the Tariff entry read as follows: "Antisera and other blood factions; vaccines, toxins, cultures of micro-organism (including ferments but excluding yeasts) and similar products." 2. On 4.1.1994 a Notice was issued to the Assessee proposing re-classification of the products. The products listed in Annexure-A to the notice were proposed to be classified under heading 3005.90. The products listed in Annexure-B to the Show Cause Notice were proposed to be classified under Heading 3822.00.3. The Assessee filed detailed submissions. It was claimed that the majority of the products listed in Annexure-A were antisera, etc. It was claimed that there was a clear distinction between blood grouping sera and blood grouping reagents although bot...

Goa Bottling Company Limited and Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa. Demand of duty of Rs. 23,42,635/- has been confirmed and penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs has been imposed on M/s. Goa Bottling Company Limited on an application of the extended period of limitation, while a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on M/s.Coca-Cola India Ltd. 2. The demand is the result of inclusion of advertisement expenses incurred and reimbursed by M/s. Britco Foods Company Ltd., (now Coca-Cola India Limited) to M/s. Goa Bottling Company Limited in respect of the advertisement charges incurred by the supplier of beverage base namely, Coca-Cola India Limited, in the assessable value of aerated water manufactured by M/s. Goa Bottling Company Limited during the period 01/04/1994 to 31/05/1995 as per the agreement and sold to independent distributors.3. On hearing both sides we are of the view that the applicants have made out...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Jamshri Ranjitsinghji Spg. and Wvg ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in these 12 appeals is whether in determining the liability to duty on the yarn that the appellant manufactured is the weight of value of unsized yarn that should form the assessable value, weight of the value of unsized yarn. The representative of the respondent agrees with the contention of the departmental representative that the case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (131) ELT 671. He says, however, that in that decision, it has been held that where the yarn in cleared for captive consumption in the manufacture of fabric, it is the weight of value of the unsized yarn that should be taken into account, where the yarn is cleared for home consumption it is the weight of value of the sized yarn. He says that the respondent cleared the yarn both for home consumption as well as for captive consumption in the manufacture of fabric and the duty payable therefore will have to be worked out.2. A...

Rajendra Mechanical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT1170Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Notice issued to the appellant proposed inclusion in the assessable value of the pipes and tubes that it manufactured of the notional interest (i.e. interest notionally calculated and not actually paid) on the deposits towards the price of these goods that it took from this buyers. Adjudicating on the notice, the Dy. Commissioner noted the existence of an order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case holding that, in the absence of evidence that the fact of advances had depressed the price, it is not permissible to include the notional interest in the assessable value of the goods.3. The department appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals).That authority allowed the department's appeal, set aside the order of the Dy. Commissioner and confirmed the liability of the manufacturer to pay duty. Hence the appeal by the manufacturer.4. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. It requests for decision on merits and relies upon the earlier order of the Tribunal.5. When confront...

Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty liability of Rs. 96,774/- has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad who has held that during the period from 16^th to 19^th December, 1998, the Stenter machine, for which the applicants had intimated closure, had not been sealed, but the sealing took place on 19^th December, 1998. In addition to the duty liability, penalty of amount equal to duty as well as a penalty of Rs. 12,097/- for delayed payment in December, 1998 has been imposed.2. We have heard both the sides and perused the impugned order. The contention of the assessees that since they had intimated on 14^th December, 1998 itself, they were not liable to pay duty for the period subsequent to that date is not acceptable since the Stenter machine was sealed only on 19^th December, 1998 after which there is no doubt about its non-functioning. We, therefore, direct pre-deposit of the duty amount within a period of 8 weeks from today and on such deposit pre-deposit of penalty shall stand waived ...

Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(102)LC629Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present appeal is filed against the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V made in Order-in-Original No. 10/Commr/V/98 dated 24.12.1998 whereunder he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 9,27,78.318/-and imposed a penalty of equal amount. He has also ordered confiscation of land, building etc. and also fixed a fine of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for their redemption.2. The appellants have been manufacturing paper covered copper strips and also undertaking production of the said goods on job work basis. In respect of the job work, the appellants received copper rods/bars from the suppliers which are converted into rectangular copper strips and then insulated with insulating paper. The insulating paper is imported by the appellants and utilised in their manufacture of the final products as well as in respect of their job work. As and when the appellants use the said insulating paper for job work basis they reverse the modvat credit already taken on the said insulating pa...

Ginza Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC194

1. The appellant imported a consignment of 1800 used warp beams which are used for containing the wrap yarn in loom and claimed clearance of these goods in terms of paragraph 15. This provision permits importation of second hand capital goods having minimum residual life of five years of the capital user without a licence. The department was of the view that the beams in question were not "capital goods" as defined in the import policy and therefore required a licence for import. Notice was issued to the importer containing this objection.The importer contended in reply that the beams were part of a consignment of 18 knitting machine which it had imported earlier in pursuance of a contract and the beams had been supplied late since the supplier had difficulty obtaining it. The goods ought to be part and parcel of the consignment and considered as capital goods. The Commissioner did not accept this view. He said, "The Importer has neither submitted any complete plant layout drawings no...

Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and proceed to dispose off the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides as the issue in dispute is covered by various decisions of the Tribunal. Duty is alleged to be short-paid by adopting normal price as Rs. 1,000/- per metric ton which was found to be the minimum cost of molasses as per Chief Sugar Technologist of the Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune. Against the 4 independent orders of the Adjudicating Authority, the appellants preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who directed pre-deposit of the duty and penalty in all cases. An application for modification was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals); who rejected the same; a fresh application for modification was filed which was also rejected and the appeals were dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, these appeals along with stay appli...

Maharashtra Mantralaya and Allied Government Employees' Co-operative C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR472; [2002(92)FLR1112]; 2002(2)MhLj708

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. These are cross petitions filed by the Maharashtra Mantralaya and Allied Government Employee's Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. and the employee against the orders of the Labour Court in a complaint filed under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU AND PULP Act') and the order of the Industrial Court passed in revision. The petitioner in writ petition No. 1476 of 1999 and respondent No, 1 in Writ Petition No. 2605 of 1999 is the employer society. The employee is respondent No. 1 in writ petition no. 1476 of 1999 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2605 of 1999.2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows :On 7-3-1972, the employee joined the services of the MaharashtraMantralaya and Allied Government Employee's Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,which is the employer herein, as a peon. In 1977, the employee was confirmed inservice and was promoted as a clerk on...