Mumbai Court May 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S N.R.C. Ltd and M/S Century

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT1012Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common question in both these appeals by the Commissioner is the eligibility to credit in terms of Rule 57Q of the duty paid on the engine and alternators which together constitute a diesel generating sets.2. Each of the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of rayon yarn and nylon yarn, tyre cord fabrics and similar products. Each of them entered into a contract for installation of a diesel generating set in its factory with the fabricator M/s Modi Mirrless Blackstone Ltd, in the case of Century Rayon Ltd and M/s Wartsila NSD (India) Ltd in the case of National Rayon Corporation Ltd. These fabricators entered into an arrangement with the manufacturer by which they sold the engine and alternator initially, and subsequently assembled these into a generating set in the factory.3. The respondents took credit of the duty paid on the alternator and the engine under Rule 57Q. The department objected to by issue of notices. The notices were commonly worded, proposing to deny the cr...

Maharashtra Scooters Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(126)ELT726Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying the modvat credit for box spanner, spanner set, screw driver and tool kit bag for manufacture of two-wheelers. We find that the issue has been settled in favour of the assessee vide the larger bench judgement of the Tribunal reported in 1996 (88) ELT 355 (Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. CCE, Pune) . In this judgement the Tribunal has held that the tool kits, etc. were inputs as contemplated in Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and were not excluded by the explanation thereto.2. Following the ratio of the larger bench judgement this appeal is allowed with consequential relief....

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/S J.B.A. Printing Inks Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. After hearing the departmental representative, the respondent being absent, and unrepresented despite notice, I take up the appeal itself for decision.3. As is generally of the case of the department's appeals, this appeal is scrappy and incomplete. The relevant documents such as bill of entry have not been submitted and the departmental representative expressed helplessness. however, the facts forthcoming from the documents, which have been submitted, are these. M/s J.B.A. Printing Inks Ltd, the respondent to this appeal, imported 0.2 tonne of chlorinated polypropane. It however paid duty that was assessed on 2 tonnes of this product. It subsequently claimed refund of the duty paid in excess. It was asked to produced evidence before the refund could be sanctioned that, as required by the provisions of sub section (2) of Section 28 of the Act, the incidence of duty claimed as refund has not been passed on to any other person. The order of the Assistant Commissioner and the memorand...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. F.D.C. Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT171Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Respondent is a manufacturer of fairgenol, mycoderm powder and cotaryl skin cream. They classified it as falling under sub-heading 3003.10 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. The jurisdictional officer wants to classify mycoderm powder under 3307.20 and cotaryl skin cream under heading 33.04. In this view show cause notice was issued demanding duty on these products manufactured and cleared by the respondents. Respondents, the manufacturer, disputed the claim and contended that the products fall under heading 30.03 as medicaments and not under Chapter 33. Overruling the contention raised by the respondent the jurisdictional officer by order No. 123/DMD/95 dated 24/12/1995 confirmed the demand of duty and also imposed penalty invoking the provisions contained in Rule 173Q. Respondents took up the matter in appeal. The appellate authority by order-in-appeal No.A/309/96 dated 21/08/1996 allowed the appeal holding that three products manufactured by the respondents are fallin...

Sitson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal the appellant challenge duty demand of Rs.5,06,359/- and imposition of penalties of amount equal to duty and of Rs. 1,000/-.The appellant prays for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Act.2. Learned Counsel representing the appellant submits that an amount of Rs.6 lakhs is already pre-deposited in terms of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) read with CEGAT order dated 21/03/2000. This amount lying in deposit would be sufficient pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal. We make it clear that the said amount lying in deposit should not be withdrawn by the appellant until further orders....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gtc Industries Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT236Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal, at the instance of the Revenue is against the order of the adjudicating authority dated 10/04/1992. That order happend to be passed pursuant to a show cause notice dated 15/09/1989 in relation to the transaction covering the period 01/09/1985 to 28/02/1987. The respondent herein challenged the show cause notice issued to them by the department earlier by filing writ petition No. 67/84. When they received the show cause notice dated 15/09/1989 that was also challenged by amending the writ petition No.67/84. High Court allowed the adjudicating authority to proceed with the adjudication pursuant to that show cause notice on condition that order passed thereon should not be communicated to the assessee or the notice. Final order on that show cause notice was passed by the adjudicating authority on 10/04/1992. That final order was filed before the High Court in a sealed cover and it was exhibited in that writ petition as exhibit "JJ". The order, marked as "JJ" in writ petit...

Shetron Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT736Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant received three consignments totally weighing 189.315 tons of goods described as "electrolytic tin plate W/W", "Appx. Waste waste quality electrolytic tin plate" and "electrolytic tinplate waste/waste" which had been imported by Fibre Foils Ltd. It is state that Fibre Foils Ltd. is a "sister concern" of the appellant. The appellant took credit of the duty shown to have been paid in the three bills of entry in which the consignments were cleared. The appellant took credit of the duty shown to have been paid in July, September and October 1993. In January 1994 and March 1994, it issued two gate passes for clearance of tin plates totalling 189.315 tons.2. Notice issued to the appellant in April 1994 demanded duty equal to the credit taken by the appellant on the three consignments that it received, on the ground that the bills of entry wee not valid documents for it to take the credit, and also proposed penalty. The Assistant Collector did not accept the contention that t...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT569Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 56,202/- and a penalty of Rs 5000/-.2. The applicant receives crude glycerine from its manufacturer for refining and return. Part of the crude glycerine consists of insoluble salt, which settles at the bottom of the tanker trucks in which it is transported from the premises of its manufacturer to the applicant's premises. The applicant drains off the glycerine, disposing of the sediments in a manner that it is unspecified. What has been demanded is the duty paid on that part of the crude glycerine which consists of the sediments of insoluble salt, on the ground that it is not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished product, the refined glycerine.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant, that the insoluble salt consists of waste, refuse or by product and therefore is covered by Rule 57D (1), cannot be accepted at this stage for want of evidence.Apart from the fact that there is no ground in the appeal...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Ruby Plastic Fittings

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When this application for stay of operation of the order-in-appeal was heard it appeared that the issue being clear the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was so done.2. The respondents were not present but had placed written submissions on record.3. The respondents manufacture water tanks. On a visit to their factory certain number of tanks were not found to be recorded in the RGI register. These were confiscated by the original authority. Original authority also held that moulding powder, manufactured by the assessees, captively consumed for the manufacture of tanks did not suffer the burden of duty. That duty was also confirmed. It was found that 50% of the goods were sold to M/s. Vaghasia Plastics. Original authority held that this established relationship between the two and that the duty should be calculated at the price at which M/s. Vaghasia were selling the goods. It was also held that since the goods were directly moved from the assessee's factory to the n...

Zenith Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The show cause notice dated 29/01/1999 was issued to the appellant by Appraising Group VII, New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. As per that notice the appellant before us was to show reason why duty amounting to Rs. 36,43,985/- should not be demanded, penalty contemplated by Section 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, be imposed.Reply to this show cause notice was sent by the appellant to the authority which issued the show cause notice, Unfortunately the order in adjudication was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo wing. In his order-in-original dated 24/10/2000 it was observed "no reply was received to the notice till August, 2000 inspite of several reminders". He also states that nobody on behalf of the noticee turned up for personal hearing on 13/10/2000. Thereupon adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/-.2. Show cause notice was issued by the Custom House, Mumbai. Reply which was filed before that authority, w...