Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Tube Masters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 19,15,798/- and penalty of Rs. 13,30,999/-. Learned counsel, Shri V.Sridharan, for the appellants submits that the show cause notice dated 31.3.1997 issued for the period 1993-95-96 for the amount Rs. 13,30,999/- is barred by limitation as it mentions that the intermediate products namely re-drawn brass tubes was intimated to the department. He cities letters written by the assessee from 1986 to 31.3.1992 where even under the last mentioned letter there is a reference to visit of central excise officers prior to the approval of classification list. he further states that the process of manufacture was known to the department in as much as in the declaration filed before the authorities there is a reference to the re-drawing of tubes as well as manufacturing of the brass in para 9 of the said declaration. The further argument he made was that the order-in-original was heard by one Additional Commissioner and the order was ...

M/S. Kripa Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune made in Order-in-Original No. 16/CEX/1995 dated 6.4.1995. In the impugned order the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,47,174.69 and imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- for mis-utilizing the credit and violating the provisions of rule 57F(2) and F(3) of the Central Excise Rules.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various types of excisable goods including acid slurry and synthetic detergent powder/washing powder/ spray dried detergent powder. It would appear that the assessee were initially manufacturing only acid slurry and were availing modvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of acid slurry. In view of the development of the business of the assessee they undertook to export spray detergent powder on their account. They filed classification list declaring the said product as their final product. They al...

M/S. Dharmendra Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal No. E/3276/2000-Mum is filed against an order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for failure of the assessees to honour his directive on the stay applications. Applications are also filed. Application No.E/COD-831/2000-Mum is for condonation of delay of about 101 days.The other is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.1,05,555/-.2. On going through the order-in-original it appeared that the demand in the first proceedings is pursuant to the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in an earlier proceeding relating to the same appellants, to the effect that the appellants were persons related to those who are marketing their goods. A query was therefore made of the counsel as to the fate of the earlier proceedings. He informs us that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been challenged before the Tribunal vide appeal No. E/2035 to 2043/V/97-Bom.3. We have considered these aspects. The confirmation or otherwise of the present ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT961Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a department's appeal against the decision of made by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur in Order-in-Appeal No.262-CE/IND/92 dated 27.4.1992. In the said order the Commissioner (Appeals) decided several points in favour and also against the assessee. The appeal before us is restricted to three points which are itemized below:- 2. The assessee in this case is engaged in the manufacture of soap, cosmetics and toilet preparations falling under chapter 33 and 34 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the Cl's filed by the assessee it claimed deductions on several points. The order-in-original passed by the jurisdictional authority was against the assessee against which an appeal was filed before the appellate authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order in disposing of several appeals before him, as stated above, decided for and against the assessee. The points on which the department relies should have been agitated before u...

Nrc Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to Rule 57Q of tanks which contains liquefied chlorine gas, otherwise known as toners or chlorine containers.2. The order impugned in these appeals the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the denial by the Additional Commissioner of the claim of the manufacturer for credit under Rule 57Q on the ground that these were not covered by the definition of capital goods contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q.3. In the decision in CCE Vs. Hukumchand Jute Industries Ltd. 2000 (41) RLT 322 the Tribunal has held chlorine cylinders to be capital goods under Rule 57Q, relying upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal which held that cylinders for chlorine liquefied gas and oxygen to be capital goods.4. Following the ratio of this decision we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief according to law....

M/S. Laxmi Boilers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1189Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides, it appeared that the main appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done on granting proforma waiver of the duties confirmed and the penalties imposed in both the proceedings.2. The appellants manufactured boilers, availing of the benefit of notification 205/88-CE dated 25.5.1988 as amended. Entries at sr. nos.15 & 18 in the table to the notification read as under:- "15: Agricultural and Municipal waste conversion devices producing energy. 18: Parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for the manufacture of goods specified at sr. nos. 1 to 17 above." 3. The show cause notices covering the periods October, 1995 to August, 1997 and December, 1998 to March, 1999 alleged that the appellants were manufacturing conveyors and control panels which were not covered under the benefit of this notification. It was alleged that the assessee had consumed them without payment of duty in the manufacture of exempted products and in do...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. International Combustion

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the notional interest on the deposits that the respondent receives from its buyers for the sale of goods manufactured by it is to be include din their assessable value. In order impugned in this appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) has, applying the ratio of the judgement of the Madras High Courts in Lakshmi Machines Works Ltd. Vs. CCE 1992 (57) ELT 211 held that in absence of nexus between the fact of the advance of reduction in price such notional interest is not includable in the assessable value.2. The appeal relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Resistance Alloys India Ltd. Vs. CCE 1995 (77) ELT 721. It is now settled that unless it is established that the fact of advance has resulted in lowering the price, notional interest of such deposit is not includable in the assessable value. There is no attempt in the appeal to establish such nexus. We therefore see no reason to interfere....

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT861Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Span Heat Transfer Equipment Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Navsari (Span for short) is engaged in the manufacture of housing and other parts of electric transformers. It sought for, and received, for permission from the department to send to job workers items such as sheets, pipes etc.for operations such as shaping, punching, to be carried out on them, the goods thereafter to be returned to it for use in manufacture.2. The manufacturer availed of notification 1/93. This notification exempts unconditionally from duty first clearances up to the value of Rs.30 lakhs. The department was of the view that goods so cleared within the value of Rs. 30 lakhs would not be entitled to the benefit of notification 214/86 for the reason that the notification exempted goods manufactured as job work and "in or in relation to the manufacture of final product (on which duty of excise is leviable whether in whole or part)". This condition in notification 214/86 would not be satisfied with regard to the goo...

M/S. Silver Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assesses in this appeal were manufacturing paper based laminated sheets claiming classification under sub-heading 4823.90 and clearing the same on payment of 30% duty. Periodical show cause notices were issued seeking recovery of differential duty on the ground that the correct classification was under chapter 39 where the rate of duty was 40%.2. The classification of such goods was in dispute for a long time. In a number of judgment the Tribunal had held that the appropriate chapter was chapter 48. Subsequently the Supreme Court in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. which judgment was issued on 10.3.1997 held that the classification warranted was under chapter 39/3920.37. following the ratio of the judgment the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demands and also imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the levy of differential duty but directed that the demand would be re-worked taking into account deductions available. Against this order an appeal was filed by the as...

K.B. Shah Vs. Ccex, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. There has been a substantial delay by the applicant before us in complying with the terms of the Commissioner's stay order to deposit Rs. 10,000/- out of penalty imposed of Rs. 75,000/-. However having regard to the fact that the duty found to be evaded of the goods by the manufacturer (of which the applicant is the partner) is only Rs. 11,645/-, we do not think any further deposit is required.2. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before him for non-compliance with the stay order is set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall now hear and dispose of the appeal on merits....