Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Batliboi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1227Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessee availed of the Scheme of modvat and filed declaration, in term of Rule 57G showing description of the final products and the description of the inputs. Same inputs were declared as "other electrical" showing the Chapter hading as 85. In terms of this declaration the assessee took modvat credit and utilised the same for payment of duty on the final products. They, however, maintained detailed index cards showing the description of each items covered under this general description. The detailed description was shown in the RG-23A Part-I register also on receipt of the physical inputs.Extract of these was also appended to the RT-12 returns filed every months. These returns were duly assessed.2. On 13/10/1993 show cause notice was issued covering the period December, 1988 to April, 1989 alleging that modvat credit taken on the inputs was deniable in view of the inadequate declaration thereof. The show cause notice alleged mis-declaration and suppression the part of the ass...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Shefjo Plastics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by Revenue was argued by Shri Sarkar. Respondents were not present despite notice but earlier field a cross-objection with an application for condonation of delay. That application was disposed off by a separate order.2. The respondent was a small sector unit but had not got registered themselves with the Director of Industries. Proviso (2) to Notification No. 1/93 permitted such unregistered manufactures to clear their specified goods up to an aggregate value of Rs. 30 lakhs without payment of duty. The assessee, however, paid duty, too, modvat credit on the duty paid on the inputs and utilised the same. Show cause notices were issued alleging that in the face of the exemption given they could not have paid duty and therefore the credit availed by them was required to be reversed. After hearing the assessee the Assistant Collector directed reversal of credit amounting to Rs. 3,03,037/-.Against this order the assessee field an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying ...

B.L. Organics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has found that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of notification 203/92, for the reason that it has availed of modvat credit facility in the manufacture of goods which it exported as a consequence of which it obtained an advance licence, and thus contravened one of the conditions subject to which the exemption is availed of.3. The Commissioner records that the importer did not reply to the show cause notice which proposed denial of the exemption. Counsel for the appellant cited before us a copy of the importer's letter dated 9.8.99 addressed to the Asst. Commissioner of Customs and received in the custom house. The importer had contended in his letter that he had not taken modvat credit and said that he would produce certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise officers in support.4. It is evident that the Commissioner has not considered the contention in the appeal. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set asi...

Smzs Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty of Rs. 4800/- has been deposited. The application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 24000/-.2. The dispute relates to classification of choline chloride. The applicant claims its classification as a animal feed suppliment under heading 23.02 of the Tariff, whereas the impugned order confirms its classification under 29.23 as organic compound.3. Apart from the fact that it would be ordinarily inappropriate to impose penalty in a matter relating to classification, the classification of the product under heading claimed by the applicant appears to have been accepted by the larger bench decision in Tetragon Chemie P. Ltd. v. CCE...

Harbanslal Dawar and Dawar Radios Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The two applications are for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Act on Dawar Radios and Harbanslal Dawar, its proprietor.3. Penalty has been imposed on the finding that the audio systems and air conditioners seized from the possession of the applicant were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. The show cause notice proposed confiscation for contravention of Sections 111(a) and (b) but did not cite Section 111(d). Apart from this, the goods are neither notified under Section 123 nor specified under Chapter IVA of the Act. Penalty cannot be simultaneously imposed on the proprietary concern and its proprietor.4. For these reasons, we waive deposit of the penalty imposed and stay their recovery.5. On the ground that the goods have been absolutely confiscated, we accept the prayer of the counsel for the appellant for out of turn hearing and list the matter on 12.11.2001....

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT153Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd., the respondent to these two appeals is a manufacturer of bricks, blocks and tiles. Notice issued to it demanded duty on the unfired bricks that is stated to have been manufactured by it. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal from this order the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the unfired bricks were of no use to anyone and were not marketable. He accordingly set aside the demand for duty. Hence this appeal by the department.2. It is difficult for us to accept the contention of the manufacturer that the goods had no market, and that it only sold these unfired bricks at throw away prices because its kiln was unusable, The show cause notice which we are concerned with in appeal 3666 relates to a period from April to June 1996. Notice in the other appeal 3667 relates to the period from October to November 1996. The departmental representative tells us that one more appeal is pending. It is thus clear that there ha...

L and T-sargent and Lundy Limited Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)2STR523

1. On hearing both sides it appears that the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. This was done on granting waiver of pre-deposit of service tax confirmed of Rs. 4,32,375/-.2. The appellant provided engineering services to M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited and paid the service tax and also included the same in the bills raised on M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited. They later realised that M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited being consulting engineers themselves were liable to pay the service tax on the services rendered by them to the customers. On that ground they filed a refund claim of the tax already paid. The Dy. Commissioner accepted the contention and directed refund to be paid. This order was reviewed by the jurisdictional Commissioner in terms of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. In the notice sent to the present appellant it was claimed that since the burden had been passed on by the present appellant to M/s.Larsen & Toubro Limited, in terms of the provisio...

Kec International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned int he appeal, the Commissioner has held that the benefit of notification 203/92 was wrongly availed of by the appellant before us. He said that it was not entitled to the benefit for the reason that modvat credit had been availed of in the manufacture of the exported product.2. The contention of the appellant before us is that it did not avail of the benefit of the notification 203/92 at all. It has been granted quantity based licence, which again entitled it to benefit of notification 204/92. This notification does not contain any condition regarding modvat credit.3. A copy of the import licence in question and DEEC book indicates the licence to be quantity based licence. In the absence of the bill of entry under which the goods were cleared it is not possible for us to say whether the appellant claimed or whether it was granted the exemption contained in notification 203/92 or 204/92.4. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and reman...

Rsl Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Asst. Commissioner determined the annual capacity of the stenter in the appellant's factory in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. While doing so, he included the rail length of the galleries which are part of the stenter. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal against this order on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the entire duty and penalty.Sangam Processors Bilwara v. CCE 2001 (127) ELT 679 has held that the rail length of the galleries is not to be included in computing the capacity of the stenter.3. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and also the Asst. Commissioner. The matter is remanded to the Asst. Commissioner for determining the capacity in accordance with law....

Wyeth Laboratories Ltd., Satya Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT313Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The primary question for consideration in these three appeals is the classification of the product, prednisolone tablets of 10 mg and 20 mg strength manufactured by the appellant. In the classification list field by it, the appellant had claimed their classification under heading 3003.20 of the Tariff as a medicament (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusive of ayurvedic, unani, siddha, homeopathic or bio-chemic systems. These products carry nil rate of duty. The classification lists were approved. The notice issued to be manufacturer, its managing director and marketing director proposed that the product was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 10 30.03 as a patent or proprietary medicaments, demanded the duty payable thereby and proposed penalty on the manufacturer and these two employees.2. In the common order impugned in the appeals before us, the Commissioner has confirmed the classification of the products under sub-heading 10 and demanded du...