Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Cen. Excise, Vs. Mahindra Eng. and Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal from Revenue was argued by Shri Sarkar. Respondents were not present in spite of notice.2. The assessees filed application for taking transitional modvat credit of the duty paid inputs lying in stock. Certain goods were received by them from manufacturers eligible for concessional rate of duty but the present assessee had claimed notional higher credit. Show cause notice was issued denying the credit. It was claimed before the Asstt. Collector that while eligibility under Rule 57A was established, the eligibility for higher notional credit under Rule 57B could not be denied. The Asstt. Collector did not accept this contention holding that the rules were entirely different. The assessee, then filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that Rule 57H did not speak about the quantum of modvat credit. He observed that the eligibility arose under Rule 57A and the procedure was given under Rule 57G. He observed that Rule 57B was an extra ordinary provision and whatev...

M/S Parshuram Steels Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessee requested for disposal on merits. I have heard Shri Sarkar for the Revenue.2. The credit taken by the assessee under Rule 57Q on M.S. Bright, M.S.Beam etc. used for structuring an overhead crane was denied in the impugned order. The Commissioner held that the crane did not qualify the material handling equipment. The appeal is against this order.3. The question is no longer res-integra. The eligibility to crane as modvatable inputs under Rule 57Q has been established in the following judgments: (I) 1999 (112) ELT 470 (Usha Ispat Limited) (2) 1999 (114) E.L.T. 355.4. When the crane itself is held as eligible inputs, the components used for making the same would automatically qualify....

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT449Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal permitted to be retained here,on the ground that the appellant's registered office and head office are in Mumbai.2. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 85.66 crores and a penalty of Rs. 10.00 crores.3. The applicant has a factory at Tuticorin where it manufactures copper anodes. It transfers the entire production of these anodes to its factory at Silvasa, which converts them into cathodes or rods, both of which are sold. The duty has been demanded on the ground that determination of the value of the anodes cleared from the Tuticorin factory to Silvasa factory were not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(b)(2) of the Valuation Rules for the following reasons.Various elements such as charges incurred of the importation of raw material are required to be included. The margin of profit to be applied is the profit that was earned at the Silvasa unit and the factory at Tuticorin.4. The Commissioner has declined to accept the margin of profit that wa...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Botliboy and Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue was argued by Shri Sarkar, D.R. The respondent was not represented in spite of notice.2. The assessee manufactured generator sets. These were cleared along with electric batteries. The value of the batteries was included in the value of the generator sets and credit of duty paid on the batteries was taken. Show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of the credit.The Asstt. Collector dropped the notice holding that batteries were essential components of generator sets. On a reference made by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower decision relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE vs. Videocon VCR[1996(83)ELT436] in which it was held that where batteries were used in the remote control of TV, credit of duty paid thereupon was eligible. Against this order, this appeal has been filed. Reliance was placed on the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs.Ashok Layland [1996(83)ELT 364].3. I have seen both the jud...

Devidayal Electronic and Wire Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants requested for adjournment. However, the issue having been settled in law, I proceed to decide the appeal on perusal of the contentions made in the appeal memorandum and also those made by Shri Sarkar appearing for the Revenue.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wires. Certain chemicals were used by them for pickling raw materials, for lubricating wires, for washing of the lubrication, for providing protection, for annealing and such uses in certain process. Due declarations were filed by them under Rule 57G. The specific use of these products was also informed to the department vide letter dated 19.9.88. Show cause notice dated 8.1.93 was issued seeking recovery of credit availed of on these products during the period 9.1.88 to May, 1991. After hearing the assessees, the Commissioner passed orders confirming recovery of Rs. 2,20,476.12 and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, the appeal.3. The actual use of the various chemicals which has been nar...

M/S Knoll Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT267Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant manufactured medicaments. Their claim to credit of duty paid on stainless steel container under Rule 57Q was denied. Hence the appeal.2. The use of the contested goods is explained by the appellant. They manufacture tablets from granules. The tablet making machine is to run continuously and, therefore, flow of granules is essential. The contested containers store the granules and feed the same to the tablet making machine. The Commissioner upheld the denial on discussing the coverage of the subject goods. He termed the contested goods as "material handling equipment". I find that the ld. Commissioner was clearly in error in his opinion in as much as the contested goods were sued in the actual production of the final goods and were not merely used as material handling equipments. The containers were an essential part of tablet making machine and would clearly qualify in terms of Rule 57Q. The order of the Commissioner doe snot sustain. The appeal is allowed with conseq...

Indian Seamless Steels and Alloy Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is denial of modvat credit on EOT crane, ultrasonic flow detector and other goods like beams/angles/shapers etc. in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner held that the material handling machine did not bring about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product and therefore was not eligible. He cited the Tribunal order No.551/96 WRB dated 16.2.96 in the case of Sandvik Asia holding that measuring apparatus did not qualify. As regards the third input, he did not make any specific observation.2. I find that the issue stands covered in the several judgments of the Tribunal. The present appellant used the EOT crane for transfer of molten materials. In identical circumstances, modvat was allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Usha Ispat Limited [1999(112)E.L.T.470]. In their own case also EOT crane was held as admissible input vide Order No.1521/97/WRB dated 14.4.97. The ultrasonic flow detector is used ...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Mayurs Steels P. Ltd. and S.B.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals filed by the Revenue involve same point of law and, are therefore, taken up together for disposal. Shri Sarkar appeared for Revenue. The respondents in appeal No. E/1495/96-Mum were represented by Shri B.Y. Naik. The respondents in appeal No.E/2140/96-Mum requested for adjournment. The issues having been well settled by earlier judgment of the Tribunal, the appeals are taken up for disposal vide this single order.2. In both the cases, modvat credit was taken by the assessee on the strength of Gate Passes issued before 1.4.94 but endorsed thereafter and the credit was taken before 30.6.94. In allowing the credit, the Commissioner relied upon the following judgments: (1) Moosa Haji Patrawala Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Bombay.Chaphekar Engg.P.Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune 3. In the appeal memorandum in both the cases, the only point made is that the department had not accepted these judgment of the Tribunal and have filed reference application against these judgments.4. Similar argument...

Devidayal Electronic and Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants requested for adjournment. However, the issue having been settled in law, I proceed to decide the appeal on perusal of the contentions made in the appeal memorandum and also those made by Shri Sarkar appearing for the Revenue.2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of wires. Certain lubricating preparations were used by them in such manufacture. These were duly declared by them and vide a letter dated 19.9.88, the specific functions of each lubricant preparation were declared to the range officer. Show cause notice dated 6.1.93 was issued seeking reversal of the modvat credit taken on these inputs from 91.88 to 28.11.90. After hearing the assessees, the Commissioner passed the impugned order disallowing the credit, confirming recovery of Rs. 1,62,791.07 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, the appeal.3. Before the Commissioner and in the appeal memorandum, it is claimed that the preparations are used at the time of drawing. It is claimed that if these ...

Compack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to deposit the entire duty of Rs. 3,91,228/- that was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (whose order was in appeal before him).The Assistant Commissioner, in his order, found that there was short levy of duty by the manufacturer, the applicant before us. It was engaged in the manufacture of composite containers and was availing of the benefit of concessional duty contained in notification 68/88. This benefit was not available to it for the reason that the condition subject to which the exemption was available, that procedure under Rule 56A or 57A should not be availed, had been contravened.2.The notification grants exemption, subject to the condition contained in the proviso that it shall not apply to a manufacturer who avails the procedure under Rule 56A or 57A "in respect of the duty paid on the base paper or base paper board." The Assistant Commissioner appears to have lost sight of the quoted porti...