Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Glaxo India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT189Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent herein field a classification list effective from 14.2.92 in which they claimed classification of Ranitidine Injection under CET sub-heading 3003.20 attracting nil rate of duty claiming that their medicament was other than patent and proprietary medicament. Show cause notice was issued for classification under 3003.10 since the label "Glaxo" was considered to be a brand name. The Asst. Collector classified the product under heading proposed in the show cause notice observing that the monogram "Glaxo" on the label is the prominent one in appearance and therefore the use of the word amounted to use of brand name. The appellant authority however held that the use of the word Glaxo did not establish any relationship between the word and the medicine. He held that "Glaxo" was a house mark, which was an identification which is compulsory under the Drugs Rules. In coming to the conclusion he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceutical Pvt....

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT338Tri(Mum.)bai

1. At the outset it is stated by the applicants that they do not contest the confirmation of duty of Rs. 3,00,277.46 and what remains for decision by the bench is the justification for imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- The case relates to clearance of remnant parts of cut sheets of Mild Steel as waste and scrap and it is the view of the department that these MS sheets are not waste and scrap and are nothing but MS sheets themselves. In other words, the department takes the view that what has been cleared are the inputs themselves and therefore duty of the amount indicated above is payable on such clearance.2. On hearing both sides and nothing that the authorities below have not given any reasons as to why penalty is called for in the present case and also nothing that there was considerable doubt in the matter as to whether the cut sheets could be considered as waste and scrap, which doubt was settled by the decision of the Tribunal in their own case reported in 1995 (75) ELT 382 (date...

Shree Balaji Yam Traders P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For the reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and proceed to take up the appeal itself for disposal with consent of both sides.2. The case relates to availment of input stage credit as well as benefit of duty free clearance in terms of notification 203/92 Cus dated 19.5.92 against value based advance licence no. PL-3499425 dated 6.1.95. Ld. Counsel for the appellant brings to our notice that a reply had been filed to the three show cause notices issued on the same point, dated 2.11.99 but in spite of this reply, in which the appellants filed AR4s where it has been certified that the appellant did not avail of modvat credit under Rule 57A, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order without noting the reply and has gone on to say that no reply had been received from the appellant. He submits that when the AR4s clearly show that input stage credit had not been availed the appellant were entitled to the benefit of duty free clearance.4. On perusing th...

M/S Jajodia Yarn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question involved in this case is about the availment of modvat credit on Lubricating Oil. The appellant who is manufacturing Polyester Texturised Yarn falling under Chapter 5402.32 claimed modvat credit under Rule 57A as input. This question has been decided against the assessee by the adjudicating officer namely Assistant Commissioner in his Order-in-Original seeking to follow the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Kanoria Sugar & Gen. Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Allahabad [1996 (87) ELT 522]. The said decision it has been reported before me has been over ruled by a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise, Meerut- Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. [2000 (119) ELT 197 (Tribunal-LB)]. Hence following the same I set aside the impugned orders and declared that Lubricating Oil is entitled to modvat credit claim by the appellant. Hence appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. Stay petitions also sta...

Additional Deputy Collector and anr. Vs. Gajanan S. Ghantkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR298

K.K. Baam, J.1. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment in view of the fact that the evidence led before the trial Court in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 33 of 1987 and 68 of 1988 was made part of the evidence in Land Acquisition Case No. 68 of 1988 and the deposition of witnesses and documents were treated as common by order dated 24th February, 1998.2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants Additional Deputy Collector and Director of Agriculture challenging the order of the Additional District Judge dated 28th February, 2000, by which enhancement of compensation has been granted from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 34/- in respect of the acquired lands. It is vehemently urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondents had not produced any material on record to justify the enhancement and further the lands acquired were large pieces of lands having an area of 1,72,275 sq. metres in the case of Land Acquisition No. 33 of 1987 whereas in the case of Land Acquisition No. 68 ...

Asaram Bhimrao Shinde and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR555; 2002(3)BomCR16

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.2. Persued the records.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.4. The petitioners challenge the order dated 22nd May, 2001 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner Beed being contrary to the basic principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the provision of law contained in the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record it is seen that, the Assistant Charity Commissioner Beed by the impugned order, while allowing the application, filed by respondent Nos. 4(a) and (b) under section 41-A of the said At, had sought to appoint a Committee of three members for the administration of the trust and its property in question and to maintain the necessary accounts in relation to the income and expenditure of the trust. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said order has been passed w...

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT837Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The appellant manufactures pharmaceutical products in its six factories. It pays different rates of sales tax for the goods cleared by it from each of its factories. The goods from various factories go to it sales depots, and are sold to its dealers from these depots. The appellant had availed of the facility contained in page 168 of circular No. 20/90-CX dated 30.8.1990. This provided that, along the lines of freight, it is permissible for a manufacturer to equalize the sales tax paid by it with regard to sales from different factories in order to ensure that the requirements relating to the marketing of the retail price inclusive of taxes on goods is complied with.3. On of the appellant's factories is located at Talasari in Thane which enjoys exemption from sales tax up to the prescribed limit. The goods cleared from this factory had also been included by the assessee determining the equalized sales. The notice issued by the jurisdictional Commissioner to the appellant proceeded ...

Shiv Herbal Research Lab P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT133Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By its letter dated 8.2.1999 Shiv Herbal Research Lab P. Ltd. requested withdrawal of the appeal field by it in this Tribunal. It said "we have to inform you that in the matter covered by the order under challenge, we have filed a declaration under Kar-Vivad Samadhan Scheme. Hence the appeal may be treated as withdrawn." The Tribunal noted this requested and permitted withdrawal of the appeal. The application now filed is for restoration of the appeal on the ground that an order under section 90(4) of the Finance Act, 1998 for full and final settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme has not been passed.2. The contention of the counsel of the applicant is that sub-section (4) of section 90 of the Finance Act comes into play only when a certificate acknowledging the full and final settlement of the dues referred to in sub-section (2) is issued. he relies this proposition upon the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in Suvarna Cements Ltd. vs. CCE 2000 (38) RLT 1009. Th...

M/S. Arvind Mills Ltd. B.R. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Application No.E/Stay-622/01 has been filed by the assessee for waiver of duty of Rs.2.3 crores approximately and penalty of Rs.2.60 crores an redemption fine of Rs.20 lakhs. As far as the other appellants are concerned, applications have been filed for waiver of Rs.5 lakhs on appellant in Appeal No. E/718/01 and of Rs.13 lakhs on the appellant in Appeal NO.E/717/01.2.The assessee appellant is having a composite cotton textile mills and manufactures cotton yarn mainly for captive consumption. Prior to 1st April, 1994 the yarn which was manufactured by the assessee, was captively consumed and was subjected to duty at specific rate and thereafter duty was levied at ad valorem. Since there was no sale of yarn from the factory, its sale price was not available. The appellant adopted costing method for calculating assessable value. The appellant was manufacturing yarn and thereafter dyed for further processing. It is the case of the appellant that they have been paying duty on yarn manu...

Special Board Mfg. Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT85Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Special Board Mfg. Co., the appellant before us, was initially constituted as a partnership firm. For the period from 1^st April to 30^th November, 1992, it availed of the benefit of notification 175/86.The partnership dissolved on 1^st December, 1992 and its business was taken over by Indo Colchem Ltd. as a proprietor. It filed on this date a classification list claiming benefit of exemption under notification 138/86. This was done because while the benefit under notification 175/86 would no longer be available, as Indo Colchem did not satisfy the criteria specified in that notification. Notice was issued do Special Board Mfg. Co. alleging that both these notifications could not be claimed in the course of one financial year. The notice also proposed independently that clause (v) of the proviso under the first paragraph of notification 138/86 excluded any manufacturer who avails exemption under notification 175/86. Duty was accordingly demanded. The Assistant Collector accepted th...