Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Owens-bilt Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The claim of the assessee in this case of modvat credit on refractories was disallowed by the Additional Collector holding that such refractories were not inputs either under Rule 57A or under Rule 57Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refractory bricks were parts of the furnace used for moulding the glass and therefore the credit under capital goods scheme was available. Against this decision the Revenue have field this appeal claiming that refractories were specifically brought into the ambit of Rule 57Q only w.e.f. 16/06/1995 on which date Notification No.11/95-CE(NT) was issued. It was claimed that the utilisation of refractories before that date would not fall under the purview of Rule 57Q.2. I have seen the Tribunal judgment in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs. Collector 1998 (86) ELT 131 in which it has been held that the aforesaid notification was (SIC) in nature and would apply to the period prior to its issue, and on this ground the benefit was extended ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/S Enercon (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay matter is posted for hearing today. I find that the appeal itself could be disposed of as the matter involved has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The respondent imported consignment of 3 nos. Demag Bridge Cranes and filed Bill of Entry no. 7198 dated 17.1.1995 for clearance. It was allowed on the ground that the subject crane was only general purpose material handling equipment and was not treated as a manufacturing machine at all. It was also on the basis of the fact that it did not manufacture anything and cannot be said to be required exclusively for the purpose mentioned in the notification. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed order dated 27.12.1995 and set aside the appeal, holding that the said crane formed an integral part of the assembling processes and used in the manufacture of lathes and operation moulds. The importer filed refund claim when the appeal is pending before the CEGAT. It has been held in the order-in-original that the goods ar...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S Tropical Nortec

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal challenges the order passed by the appellate authority which inter alia held that allegations made in the show cause notice are either rectifiable or are such that it will not affect the duty paying character of the goods. He held that once the duty paying character of the goods is not in dispute, the modvat credit cannot be denied. This finding has been challenged in the appeal before me.2. I have learned DR as well as representative of the assessee company/respondent before me. Shri J.M. Noronha, representative of the company, showed me four sets of invoices which has been the subject matter of the assessment and appeal. The inspection of the same reveals that excise duty has been paid at the input stage. This has been revealed and this has also been checked by the DR. He therefore fairly conceded that the impugned order cannot be assailed. Hence I dismiss the appeal of the department as not borne out by law and facts....

Serene Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the case is called out the appellant were not present inspite of notice. The appeal was taken up for disposal on perusal of the contentions made in the appeal memorandum and on hearing Shri J.M.George for the Revenue.2. The appellant were operating under modvat system. Their claim for credit on number of items was disallowed. Hence the appeal.3. Credit on Cage Hoist used for lifting of raw material and finished goods was disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal has held, that material handling equipment and lifting machinery are eligible for such credit, in the following judgments. (ii) CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. 1998 (100) ELT 521 (iii) Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (112) ELT 494 The orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) order in this respect do not sustain.4. Measuring instruments and process control instruments were similarly denied the benefit. In doing so the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon Tribunal judgment in th...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Owens Bilt Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the order held that lubricants were modvatable inputs. This findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contested in the present appeal from the Revenue.2. The claim made is that lubricants are used for maintenance of the machinery and cannot be held as modvatable inputs. The issue was settled by the larger bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the judgment reported in 2000 (119) ELT 197 (Commissioner of Central Customs & Excise, Meerut-I Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.).3. Following the ratio of the judgment the appel from Revenue is dismissed....

Stellar Chemical Laboratories Vs. Stellar Chemical Laboratories

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC644

1. M/s. Stellar Chemicals Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. manufactures drugs. On a surprise visit the officers found that goods valued at Rs. 16,09,695/- had been cleared by them under cover of seven invoices showing payment of duty amounting to Rs. 2,89,745.10; but that debit entries had not been made either in the PLA or in the modvat registers namely RG23A, Part-II, RG-23C, Part II. Show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the duty under Rule 292 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Imposition of penalty was alleged under Section 11AC as well as under Rule 173Q(1). Before the Joint Commissioner it was claimed that the person who wrote the excise register was not available and a substitute was posted in his place and this substitute was not clear about the making entries in the register and therefore had kept loose leaf accounts to be subsequently incorporated. These accounts were also shown to the visiting officers.It was claimed that the case did not involve any l...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Victoria Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is reversal of modvat credit in terms of the then existing rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules.2. The issue is not res integra as from the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Bhor Industries vs. CCE 3. The appeal is dismissed. The cross objection also stands disposed of....

industrial Oxygen Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The contest in this appeal is of denial of modvat credit on: (1) storage tanks; and (2) L.T. distribution panel.2. The assessee manufacture oxygen generated at the pressure of 30 kgs/cm. For the sake of marketability it had to be reduced to 12 kgs/cm. This purpose was achieved by storage in the tank. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the storage was post manufacture and did not get into production or processing of the goods.3. The situation is covered in the case of Tribunal judgment in the case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. CCE 1997 (98) ELT 674S. In that case such tanks were used for cooling chavanaprash before they being put into marketable condition. Since marketability is pre-condition to imposition of duty the ratio of the judgment would apply to the present case.4. As regards the LT distribution panel the admissibility has been upheld in a number of cases including the one in the case of Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (105) ELT 487.5. Appeal thus succeeds and is allowe...

M/S Shree Vinayak Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in this case is about the admissibility of the modvat credit obtained on 12.4.1994 on the basis of the subsidiary gate passes. The issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Phoenix Metals & Alloys P. Ltd. vs. CCE 1996 (83) 393. Hence the appeal stands allowed with consequential relief, if any, according to law....

Garlick Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the appeal was called out Shri M.N. Koparkar, Manager (Accounts) of the appellant company placed on record photocopies of the immunity granted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III in terms of the KVSS Rules, 1998. I have examined the papers and I find that they relate to the impugned order. In view of the assessee having achieved satisfaction the present appeal becomes infructuous and is thus dismissed....