Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC489

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the decision of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No. CS-80-DRD/96 dated 10.4.96 confirmed the order made by the Asstt. Collector, Vadodara made in Order-in-Original. The Asstt.Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 53,34,265 on the ground that end use certificate has not been given.2. The appellants are a company manufacturing bulk drugs namely Paracetamol IP classifiable under sub-heading 2907.90. The appellants filed a classification list 88/91 effective from 25.7.91 claiming classification under sub-heading 2907.90 and also claimed concessional rate of duty at 5% ad valorem in terms of Notification 31/88 dated 1.3.88. The CL was sent back with the remark "subject to end use certificate." It is the contention of the assessee that the notification did not stipulate any condition whatsoever for production of end use certificate in respect of the product in question in order to enjoy con...

Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Sharda Texturising Pvt. Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT640Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that in computing, for the purpose of Notification 1/93, the value of clearances of the manufacturer, it is the date on which the manufacturer opted to avail of the notification that should be reckoned and not, as the department proposed, from the commencement of the financial year for which the notification is claimed.2. We have heard the departmental representative. Respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. This issue has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Ramakrishna Engineering Works v. CCE -1996 (83) E.L.T. 346. The Tribunal has held that the words 'first clearances' occurring in the notification refer to clearances from the commencement of the financial year. There is no basis for the Commissioner (Appeals) view that since the manufacturer elected to avail of the notification in the middle of the financial year (although it was available at the commencement of the financial y...

Gajraj Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT302Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These bunch of 17 appeals, although filed by different assessees, covers the same point and is therefore taken up together for disposal in this common order.2. We have heard Shri M.N. Sayed for the appellants and Shri B.K.Choubey for the Revenue.3. The appellants Draw Texturised Partially Oriented Yarn. The inputs and outputs were covered under the proforma credit scheme under Rule 56A with effect from 1-3-87, vide Notification No. 84/87. Notification No. 1/93 which superseded Notification No. 175/86, prescribed concessional rate of duty based on value of clearances by SSI units.Vide amendment dated 25-4-94 the input and output were specified for benefit under this notification. This notification gave two options.The first was that the assessees could pay concessional rate of duty and avail of Modvat credit. The second option was not to pay any duty and not to avail of Modvat credit. The assessees in these cases opted for the first option as soon as goods were notified under Notifi...

Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. JaIn Manufacturers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT448Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad made in Order-in-Appeal No.392/95(142-RAJ)-C.E., dated 6-11-1995 confirming the Order-in-Original dated 18-7-1994.2. The assessee filed a declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Ex-cise Rules for availing credit of duty paid on capital goods in respect of ABA Portable Platform Scale 1000 Kg. The Assistant Collector did not grant the same since the assessee did not state the actual use of the aforesaid goods in the manufacture of excisable goods. An appeal was filed and the appellate authority by the impugned order stated that the appellant being a small unit they did not require to install weigh bridge but the purpose of weighment is obtained through the machining section. The appellate authority after dis cussing the point held that there is no condition in Rule 57Q(1) that the weigh-bridges should necessarily be affixed to the ground.2. Against this order the Department h...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Gandhi Soap Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT509Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent to this appeal was engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder and acid slurry. It cleared on payment of duty of 5% spent sulphuric acid, a by product. By a notice issued to the department contended that spent sulphuric acid was nothing other than the sulphuric acid which the manufacturer received and utilized, and thus not manufactured by it. It therefore proposed, although not entirely clearly, recovery of the Modvat credit taken on so much of acid that was initially utilized in the manufacture from which the spent acid resulted. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty.2. The manufacturer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that spent sulphuric acid ought to have been classifiable under Heading 38.23 and not under Heading 28.07 of the Tariff. He therefore set aside the demand and directed the Assistant Commissioner to determine duty liability and the department questions this finding contending that the correct classification ought...

Rishabh Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT508Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Modvat credit in this case was denied and the resultant duty was confirmed on the ground that the assessee had not produced the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. The claim of the appellants is that they have produced an EDP copy which should have become Modvat document. During the hearing, it appeared that there are certain instructions from the Ministry as to the particular copy which qualified on introduction of EDP. The waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed of Rs. 1,13,478/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is granted and its recovery is stayed. Both sides are di rected to procure the Ministry's order and make a mention before the Court so that the main appeal could be taken up for disposal....

Jubilee Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Examined the records and heard the learned DR. The appellant has applied for adjournment of the hearing. However, having regard to the position of law settled on the issue involved int his appeal we grant this application and proceed to dispose of the appeal finally at this stage itself.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner in adjudication of a show cause notice which demands differential duty on account of inclusion of galleries attached to hot air stenter of the appellant, within the parameters for the purpose of determination of annual capacity of production under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Production Capacity Determination Rules (for short ACD Rules).3. The appellant is an independent processor under the ACD Rules and are working under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner included the length of the galleries also in the parameters for the determination of the annual capacity of th...

Gargi Huttenes Albertus (P.) Ltd. Vs. New Standard Engg. Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR396; (2002)1BOMLR838; 2002(3)MhLj169

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The claim in the summary suit is based on goods sold, supplied and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant under an invoice dated 27-1-1996. The total amount which is due and payable to the plaintiff under the invoice is Rs. 33,792. The plaintiff is entitled to an interest at the rate of 21 per cent per annum under the terms of the invoices. The claim in the suit is for an amount of Rs. 54,489 comprised of the principal amount due under the invoices as aforesaid and interest of Rs. 20,697. The plaintiff had addressed a notice of demand on 11-2-1999 to which there was no reply.2. The only defence which was taken in the present case at the hearing for summons for judgment is that a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act') was filed in respect of the defendant and that a scheme came to be sanctioned. Now, it is common ground between the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant that the...

Shri D.K. Ariwalla, Shri M.V. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC193

1. M/s. German Remedies Limited (hereinafter called as M/s. GRL) manufacture Bulk Drugs and Pharmaceutical Formulations. The bulk drugs are made at Patalganga and the formulations are made at Goa. Credit of the duty paid at Patalganga is taken as Modvat Credit by the Goa unit.The movements of bulk drugs from one unit to another did not involve any sale. The declaration as required under Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were filed by the manufacturer from time to time.M/s. GRL were also filing certain returns to the Drug Control Authorities in terms of the relevant Act. The officers of the Directorate of Anti Evasion compared the valuation of the Bulk Drugs as disclosed to the Central Excise Authorities and to the Drug Control Authorities. Where the later declarations were based on the details of various items of costing, the valuation for the Central Excise was merely described as "Selling Price" fixed by the company. The prima facie view of the officers was that the value o...

Prempreet Textile Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by Prempreet Textile Industries Limited, the manufacturer (E-Stay-251/2001), is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.40 crores approx. and of penalties imposed under Rule 173Q(1) and Section 11AC totalling Rs. 67 lakhs. Applications by Premal Madhusudan Vora (E-Stay-417/2001), director of the manufacturer; Hemendra Laxmichand Shah (E/Stay-418/2001), administrative officer and Parmar Singh (E/Stay-416/2001), technical manager of the manufacturer are for waiver of deposit of penalties imposed on them under Rule 2209A of Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the penalties imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the manufacturer cleared approximately 2.43 tonnes of polyester filament yarn (PEY) without paying the duty payable on it.3. The manufacturer is engaged in the manufacturer of polyester filament yarn (PFY for short) by drawing partially oriente...