Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Each of the respondents to these appeals was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, part of which it cleared without payment of duty in terms of notification 217/86 to another factory owned by it, in which such goods were used in the manufacture of excisable goods which were cleared on payment of duty. The assessees had availed of the modvat credit facility and taken credit of the duty paid on inputs, used in the manufacture of goods which were cleared to the other factory for further utilisation therein. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether they were required to reverse the modvat credit of this inputs as were cleared from the factory without payment of duty. In the two orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Bajaj Tempo Ltd v. CCE 1994 (69) ELT 122 held that there was no such requirement and allowed their appeals against the order of the adjudicating authority denying credit. Hence these...

Suraj Prakash J. Jindal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT281Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides on the Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the application filed for stay of duty and penalties imposed vide order No. V-Adj(Ch.54&55] 15-69/88, dated 16-3-93 by Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-II.2. It is found that the present appeal has been filed against an order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. KKS(100) 100/M-VI/2002/9305, dated 3-8-2002 wherein the appellant had challenged the attachment of property under the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1975 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has found as - "I have examined the issue carefully. From the records of the case I find that when the case was booked by the Preventive Staff, Shri Suraj Prakash Jindal was a partner of the said firm. Secondly, the adjudication order dated 16-3-93 passed by the Collector Central Excise, Mumbai-II was not challenged by the appellant before appropriate forum, till date. From the submissions of the appellant I find ...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Motor Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to credit either under Rule 57A or 57Q of goods used in the manufacture of the final product.2. The goods in appeal 318/98 (Bajaj Auto Ltd.) are lubricating oil and greases used to lubricate machinery in the appellant's factory used to make the final product. The goods under consideration in three appeals of VIP Inds. are hydraulic oil used in the injection moulding machine of the assessee. It is settled law in CCE v. Modi Rubber 2000 (119) ELT 197 mat such lubricants are inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished goods and hence the credit of the duty paid on such oil was under Rule 57A. The same position would hold good for hydraulic oil since without its use the machinery used by VIP Industries could not have been put to use to make the finished product.3. The goods under consideration in appeal 754/98 (Motor Inds. Co.Ltd.) are checking and machinery gauges and in appeal 1014/99 by th...

Beauty Art Dyers and Cleaners Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellant, who was engaged in the processing of textile fabric, opted to avail credit from 5.10.2000 on manufactured made up textile articles. It did not pay duty on such goods that it cleared for the period from 5.10.00 to 14.12.00 on its view that they were covered by the exemption contained in the notification 8/2000. Notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery of duty on these goods on the ground that the exemption contained in the notification did not apply to them, demanding duty of Rs. 79270/-. Pending adjudication of the notice, the assessee requesting that the exemption was not available to the goods paid the duty of Rs. 68,336/-. It paid about 47,580/- from out of RG23 account and the remaining from its personal ledger account.Adjudicating on the notice, the Asst. Commissioner found that the difference between the duty demanded in the notice and the duty actually paid was satisfactorily explained. He also found the payment of duty from the modvat account incorrec...

Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR9; 2004(4)BomCR427; 2004(1)MhLj513

ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and finally disposed of as the petitioner who claims to be a freedom fighter aged 77 years.2. The petitioner appears to have taken part in the liberation movement of Goa. From the averments in the petition, it appears that he had taken part in the movement in the year 1959 and on 15th August 1955 the petitioner along with others entered the geographical limits of Goa which was under the Portuguese rule. During the course of satyagraha the petitioner and others were assaulted by the then government and that the petitioner was also injured with a bullet in his left shoulder. The petitioner has also averred that one Dr. Watve then treated him and the petitioner was discharged after recovering from the injuries. The petitioner claims that the scar of the bullet wound is still found on his left shoulder. The petitioner further states that he used to give lectures in various meetings in Mumbai and in Kokan in support of ...

Sangram Singh S/O Suresh Suryawanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj940

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Pradip Tandon and Ors., : [1975]2SCR761 , the Supreme Court held that the reservation in favour of candidates from rural areas is unconstitutional and the reservations for the hilly and Uttarakhand areas are severable and valid, as such, reservations for the hill and Uttarakhand areas are reservations within the meaning of Article 15(4) of the Constitution implying thereby that reservations in favour of socially and economically backward classes of citizens. This view was also subsequently referred to approvingly in the case of Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and also in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and other, : (1995)5SCC173 . Surprisingly, the Government of Maharashtra slept over the issue of providing for reservations for hilly area residents for admission to professional courses like Health Sciences, Engineering and law etc. in the Government run...

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT857Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In these cases, duty demand of Rs. 45,56,833/- has been confirmed on physician's samples of P & P medicines falling under Chapter Heading 30.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 manufactured and cleared by M/s. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. during the period August, 1995 to May, 2000 and penalty of amount equal to duty has been imposed upon the manufacturer. In addition, penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs have been imposed under the provisions of Rule 209A upon the Director and the Administrative Officer of the Company.2. The demand arises as a result of holding that the valuation of physician's samples has to be done in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules.3. We have heard both sides. Prima facie, the argument of the applicants is that the demand for the period upto July 1999 is barred by limitation as through out the period in dispute the applicants were filing declaration giving details of valuation of physician's sam...

K. Laminates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT823Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The order-in-appeal is a mere letter from the Deputy Commissioner conveying the order of the Commissioner. The appellants had prayed for remission of duty on account of accidental fire. The Commissioner has rejected their application without hearing them and without passing a speaking order.2. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The stay application also stands disposed off....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Tipco Polymers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT633Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. In this case, the impugned goods were classified by the original authority under subheading No. 3926.90. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the impugned goods (Foot Bridge of Plastic) under sub-heading No. 3925.99. The Department has come in appeal against the impugned classification ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is the case of the Department that the respondents have themselves admitted in the classification list that foot bridges are made of plastic. The Department has also challenged the contention of the respondents that the impugned goods are 'builders' ware' inasmuch as the Chapter Note 11 for Heading No. 3925 does not specify foot bridges. The Department has also pointed out that the respondents themselves had mentioned that the impugned goods are used by the Defence Forces for crossing rivers, etc.2. Considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of case records, related tariff entries and Chapter Note, we are of the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pearl Polymers Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC1050Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of plastic bottles, jars, containers, etc., falling under Chapter sub-heading 3932.90. During the period July, 1997 to May, 1998 they cleared some quantity of finished products on payment of duty at tariff rate i.e. @ 25% and availed inodvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of such products. They also cleared some quantity of finished products at nil rate of duty claiming exemption in terms of serial No. 57 of the table annexed to Notification 4/97-CE dated 01/03/1997 and did not avail modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of products cleared under the notification. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the benefit of serial No. 57 of the table to Notification 4/97 on the ground that the respondents had availed modvat credit of duty paid on inputs which were used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty at nil rat...