Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Suntex Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The details of the duties demanded, penalties imposed and redemption fine determined form the each of these 25 applicants are set out in the annexure.2. Ten of the applicants at Sr.No. 1,3,6,8,15,18,19,20,23 & 25 of the annexure are processors of textile fabrics. The duty has been demanded from them on the ground that the value of the grey fabrics supplied to these firms and the value referred by Nangalia Group of Companies at Sr.No. 5, 7,8,11,12 & 13 of the annexure was lower than it ought to have been. Consequently duty & penalties upon them, and penalties upon the suppliers of grey fabrics and employees and directors (listed at Sr.No.2, 4, 9, 16, 17, 21, 22 & 24 of the annexure) have also been imposed. The common notice dated 25.5.1989 demands duty for fabrics processed and cleared between April 1997 and December 1998 and invokes extended period contained in the proviso under Sub-section (a) of Section 11A.3. The common contention of behalf of the processors are ...

Swastik Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT201Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Swastik Intermediates Pvt. Ltd., the appellant before us, manufactured dye intermediates. It availed benefit of the Modvat Scheme and, took credit of the duty paid on inputs that it received in the manufacture of the dye intermediates. Among these is beta naphthol. The manufactures of the beta naphthol from whom the appellant received these goods availing of the exemption contained in notification 432/86.The notification exempts beta naphthol from duty to the extent of the duty paid on the naphthalene used in its manufacture. The notification was given effect to by means of the "set-off" procedure. The manufacturer paid part of the duty payable on the beta naphthol from the account in which the amount of the duty exempted on the naphthalene was kept. The notice issued to the appellant proposed disallowance of the credit that it took of the duty paid on beta naphthol to the extent that this duty was paid out of the accumulated amount representing exempted part of the duty of naphtha...

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(99)LC49Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals have the same set of facts. The appellants are the same. These are being disposed of together by this common order.2. The Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL in short) are Public Sector Undertaking who have secured appropriate clearance from the Committee of Secretaries. GAIL purchased natural gas from ONGC. The natural gas is petroleum in gaseous form consisting predominately of hydrocarbon gases including propane and butane. GAIL separates from the natural gas propane and butane which put together become liquefied gas (LPG). The leftover gas is turned as lean gas. One of the first steps in the process was the passing of the natural gas through molecular sieves.Molecular sieves are microporous structure composed of crystalline aluminosilicates or crystalline aluminophosphates. Sieves separate smaller molecules from larger molecules. Since they are capable of removing water molecules, such sieves are used for drying of gas. The appellant took credit of the duty paid...

M.B. Chandran, Rohini Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty demands of Rs. 11,91,314/- and Rs. 37,66,911/- have been confirmed against M/s. Rohini Coil Industries and Rohini Fabricators Ltd. respectively. In addition to duty demands as set out above penalties under Rules 173Q(1) and 226 read with Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB have been imposed and further penalty of Rs. 60,000/- has been imposed Shri M.B. Chandran Proprietor of Rohini Coil Industries and a penalty of penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed upon Shri M.B. Chandran in his capacity as director of Rohini Fabricators Ltd. 2. The duty demand arises as a result of the Commissioner's findings that goods manufactured by the applicants had ben misdeclared as Heat Exchangers etc. falling for classification under CET sub-heading 84.04 while they were actually parts for use in refrigeration or air conditioning machinery classifiable under sub-heading 84.19. The finding of the Commissioner is based upon the statements of various buyers, who have stated that all the go...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. thermon Heat Tracers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in these two appeals against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is the classification of heat tracing cables, used as part of heat tracing systems in various industries. It is stated that the system is used in maintaining fluid substances at a temperature required to prevent their freezing or solidification. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has confirmed the classification of the goods under heading 85.43 of the Tariff. The department in its appeal contends that the product is classifiable under heading 85.44. The manufacturer claims classification under heading 85.14. Heading 85.14 includes insulated wire, cable and other electric conductors. This is what the department claims the goods are. Heading 85.14 includes di-electric heat equipment, which is what their manufacturer claimed the goods to be.Heading 84.43 is for electric machinery and apparatus for individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in cha...

Gujarat Ship Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide Order No. C-I/4301-02\WZB\2000 dated 19.12.2000 M/s. Gujarat Ship Trading Corporation were directed to deposit Rs. 7.00 lakhs towards the duty and penalty imposed upon the firm. The time given for compliance was one month from receipt of the order. On compliance with the order, the predeposit of remaining duty and penalty on the firm as well as on Shri Ashok N. Patel the partner of the firm were waived.Against this order an application for modification was filed. In spite of notice the applicants were not present. The Tribunal passed Order No. C-I/1885/WZB/2001 dt, 25.7.2001 whereby the earlier orders were not modified but the date for compliance was extended on 31.7.2001. In making this order the grounds raised in the application were taken into account and were discussed. Today when the case was called out for compliance Shri P.M. Dave Ld. Advocate refers to another modification application No. C/MA (Modfn) 702/01-MUM. dt. 28.8.2001. The grounds raised in this application ar...

C. RobIn Shah and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(99)LC435Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner II Central Excise Mumbai-I in his order dt.30.1.1996 (OIO No. 5/96) confirmed duty of Rs. 48,14,546.15 against M/s Collins & Co. He imposed penalty of Rs. 65 lakhs on them. He confiscated plant, building etc. but permitted their redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 15 lakhs. In this order he imposed penalties on Shri C.R. Shah partner of Collins & Co., Shri J.H. Bhagdeo Chief Accountant M/s. Bentex Marketing Corporation and M/s. SK Enterprises and on Balkrishna Khattar Director of Bentex Marketing Corporation under Rule 209A. The Corporations and individuals filed appeals. The Tribunal in an interim order dt. 17.9.1996 directed M/s. Collins & Co.to deposit a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs as a precondition to hearing all the appeals. The deposit was made as was noted by the Tribunal on 24.2.1998. Today the appeals of the Co-noticees were listed for hearing Shri P.S. Kalve places on record the orders issued under KVSS determining the sums to be paid by M/s. Collins...

LupIn Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT366Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. Among these are rifampicin, ethambutol, isoniazid and pyrazinamide. Each of these medicaments finds use in the treatment of tuberculosis. All of them, except rifampicin, were exempted by entry 1 of the table to notification 75/94 (September 1994 to September 1999). The entry exempted from duty all formulations based on the list of bulk drugs specified in the first schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 as amended from time to time. These three were listed as bulk, to be used in the National Tuberculosis Eradication Programme, in the first schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order. Rifampicin at the relevant time was partially exempted from duty by notification 30/88.2. Tuberculosis patients derive greater benefit from treatment by combination of the drugs used than from treatment by a single medicine.The Office Memorandum dated 4.7.1995 of the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers of Government of India expl...

Modern Paper Converters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC633

1. Two show cause notices issued to the appellant demanded duty on the ground that the printed plastic film obtained by it as a result of subjecting unprinted plastic film to printing that supplied by the was not entitled to the benefit of Entry No. 30 of the Table to the Notification 14/92. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal from this order, Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the notice has been issued in pursuance of a decision arrived at by the Assistant Collector on the classification of the product, by denying the benefit of the notification; that decision had become final, not having been challenged in appeal. Therefore, the assessee should have paid duty in accordance with the classification. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that it is not correct to say that the earlier classification had become final. An appeal had been filed before the Collector (Appeals), who had dismissed it on the ground that it ...

Ashok Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(79)ECC735

1. The appellant has two factories, one at Ankleshwar and other at Nandesari. It manufactures in the factory at Ankleshwar acetic acid out of ethyl alcohol. It clears part of the acetic acid on payment of duty and sends the rest of the factory at Nandesari. There it converts the acetic acid to acetic anhydride. Rule 57K to 57P of the Central Excise Rules deal with the provisions relating to credit of money. Briefly, these rules empower the central government to specify the finished goods (final product) and raw material used in the manufacture of such goods (inputs) to which the scheme will apply. The scheme provides that credit of money is to be given to a manufacturer for use of inputs in the manufacture of final product. The rate at which credit is to be taken are to be specified in the notification. Notification 231/87 specified ethyl alcohol to be input in the manufacture interalia of acetic acid and acetic anhydride. Credit of money was available in such manufacture at the rate ...