Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Shree Mahaganesh Texpro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT779Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When this application was heard it appeared that the issue being small, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was so done.2. The appellant were operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000. Initially the capacity was determined on the basis of 5.36 chambers. The request for redetermination was turned down by the Commissioner. The request was on account of permanent shut down of two chambers subsequent to the determination of the capacity. That order was challenged before the Tribunal. However, pursuant to the said order the monthly liability on the assessee were determined by the Dy. Commissioner vide his order dated 17/03/2001. This order covers the period for the year 2000-2001.Another order, was passed by the same Dy. Commissioner on the same ground for the period 16/12/1998 to 28/02/2000. Against these two orders-in-original the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissi...

Boistar Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant manufactures medicaments. Modvat credit taken on inputs riboflavin and domperidon was disallowed and resultant duty of s.98,425/- was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. The reason was that they had field a declaration for these inputs on 01/02/1995 whereas the credit had been taken by them on 30^th August, 1994. The Additional Commissioner held that Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provided for condonation of a period of six months. He held that the declarations having been filed beyond that period the condonation could not be made and held that the credit thus became inadmissible. Before the Commissioner(Appeals) the appellant attempted to show by arithmetical calculation that he declaration was filed within the stipulated period. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the contention and upheld the demand. Hence the appeal.2. Shri Narasimhan, Excise Officer appearing for the appellant submits that the appellants had taken over a running company...

Power Switchgears Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the application was called out the applicant was not present inspite of notice. On perusal of the facts it appears that the appeal itself is being capable of disposal and it is disposed off after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,314/- and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- as prayed for.2. The duty was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on finding that modvat credit was taken on the strength of invoices issued by a dealer who was not registered. Against this decision the assessee filed an appeal as also an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed a stereo typed order directing the assessee to pre-depot Rs. 1657/- in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hid order does not show that the assessee were invited for hearing. The assessee then filed an application citing a Gujarat High Court judgment in which it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to hear the appellant before passing the orders on the stay app...

Power Build Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in this case is about the admissibility of apparatus for testing the hardness of the gear tooth used in the gear motors manufactured by the present appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that such testing was done after the goods were fully finished. He held that such testing was necessary for marketability but did not participate in the process of manufacture. On this ground he upheld the denial of credit of duty on such goods in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Before the Commissioner Appeals) and before me the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Union Carbide Ltd. Vs. CCE 1994 (74) ELT 381 has been relied upon. In this judgment the Tribunal held that in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the term manufacture included any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of manufactured product. The Tribunal observed that the function of testing and inspection of dry battery cells was a process of manufacture. In hold...

Prashant Glass Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant imported two consignments of what it declared to be cobalt concentrate from a supplier in Japan. Examination of these consignments disclosed to the department that one consignment consisted of cobalt oxide and other cobalt carbonate, each carrying rate of duty higher than that applicable to cobalt concentrate, notice was issued proposing enhancement of the value demanding differential duty, and confiscation of the goods as also penalty on the importer. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed all these acts.Hence this appeal.3. The show cause notice cited as evidence for enhancement of the value international prices for the relevant period published in the Chemical Market Report. The nature of this has not been indicated in the notice.Copies of these publications have not been given to the appellant.However, in the order that he has passed, the Commissioner cites import made by Gujarat Guardian Ltd. of cobalt oxide for US$ 34 per kg. He has ...

Udhav Bhagwanrao Naik Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the penalty imposed under the provisions of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 of Rs. 5,000/-. The son of the present appellant was penalised to the extent of Rs. 35,000/- under the Customs Act, 1962 and Rs. 10,000/- under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 for carriage of smuggled gold and also ornaments. The reason for which penalty was imposed on the present appellant was that the register prescribed under the Gold (Control) Act was not maintained. In terms of a letter dated 25/10/1997 it is claimed that the appellant expired on 14/06/1997. Copy of the death certificate is on record.2. In terms of Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 the present proceedings abate. The appeal is disposed off as infructuous....

Diastar Jewellery Ltd. and PravIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 10 lakhs by Diastar Jewellery Ltd. Penalties under Section 114 of the Act have been imposed of Rs. 10 lakhs by Diastar Jewellery and Rs. 5 lakhs by Pravin Kumar Jain, its managing director.2. Diastar Jewellery is a jewellery unit in Santacruz Electronic Export Provision Zone (Seepz). It imported nine consignments of diamond totally valued at Rs. 3.28 crores approx., kept them in its unit and exported them after three days at a value of Rs. 3.44 crores. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that these diamonds were liable to confiscation on the ground that they ere overvalued and also finds that there was a shortage of gold imported by the applicant, in order to be utilised in the manufacture of jewellery which was to be exported. It is on these grounds that he has imposed penalty.3. We are not greatly swayed by the contention that the representative of the applicant makes with regard to the value of the diamonds. No...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Foundry

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that the treated sand, made by the respondent for making sand mould has only a short shelf life of two hours and therefore not marketable and therefore, not excisable goods. This finding is challenged in this appeal.2. The appeal contends that by applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Telco v. CCE 1990 (50) ELT 644 it need not be shown that the product is actually marketed. Its marketability is sufficient.3. It is not necessary for us to examine whether the process is one of manufacture or not, or to consider the marketability of the goods. This is because assuming the goods to be excisable, the benefit of notification 217/86 will be available. The goods satisfy the condition in the notification that they are used in or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods ie.e. steel castings, in the same factory. The benefit of the notification has been extended in various decisions, of which...

Bal Pharma Ltd. Vs. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(24)PTC226(Bom)

ORDERP.C. 1. Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service through counsel.2. By consent, appeal called out and heard. 3. This appeal, is directed against an ad-interim order granted by the learned Single Judge retraining the appellant from using the trade mark 'MICRODINE' of which the Respondent is the registered proprietor from the year 1982 when it was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant (original Defendant) raises the following contentions :- (a) That the trade mark 'MICRODINE' in respect of specified pharmaceutical products has been used from the year 1992, as evidenced by the invoices placed on record. On the other hand, the Respondent has not been able to show that there has been any use or attempt to use the trade mark 'MICRODINE' by the Respondent at any time prior to the year 1998. (b) There is honest concurrent user of the trade mark by the Appellant and, as such, the Appellant is entitled to get registered under Section 12(3) of ...

The Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1075Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether cooling towers used for cooling the moulds which moulds are subsequently used in the injecting moulding machine are eligible for benefit of Rule 57Q or Not.2. The Commissioner(Appeals) ruled against the assessee appellants in this case on the observation that the cooling tower did not cause any change in substance or produce or process any goods. The main submission made in the appeal memorandum is that if the cooling tower is not used, no final goods can emerge. On this ground, the admissibility is sought.3. In a number of cases, peripheral machinery which processes certain machinery or inputs and makes them ready for manufacture of final products had been held to be admissible. In the case of J.C.T.Electronics vs.CCE, Chandigarh (2000(124) E.L.T. 541) material cooling equipment was held as admissible input. The Tribunal in the case CCE vs.Sunil Synchem Ltd. (1990(107) E.L.T. 176) had held hat air conditionining plant being essential fo...