Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Nataraj Ceramic and Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT111Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Natraj Ceramics & Chemical Inds. Ltd. was supplied quantities of raw bauxite to be calcined by it on job work and subsequently to such job work to be purchased by it. The agreement dated 1.8.1996 between Natraj Ceramics & Chemical Inds. Ltd. and Giriraj Calcine Bauxite & Refractories Pvt. Ltd., the supplier of the raw bauxite makes this position clear. Natraj Ceramics & Chemical Inds. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the job worker) after calcining the bauxite did not pay duty on it. It utilised the bauxite in its factory in the manufacture of fire bricks and other excisable goods and therefore claims the benefit of the exemption contained in 67/95, which exempts from duty captively consumed goods. Notice was issued to both the job worker and supplier demanding duty on the ground that the benefit of the exemption contained in 67/95 would not apply as the job worker was not the owner of the bauxite. Penalty was proposed on both persons and also on Ashok Kumar, the ma...

Pooja Steel and Agriculture Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT624Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a re-rolling unit which was required to discharge its duty liability under Compounded Levy Scheme which came into force with effect from 1.8.97. Under that Scheme, duty liability is discharged based on the annual capacity of production determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.4.98 whereunder capacity determined in respect of the appellant's unit was conveyed to him. The order determined annual capacity as under: 2. The present appeal submits that the determination of different capacities as above for different periods in the order is without any justification. It is pointed out that the appellant had intimated under his letter dated 31.7.97 that they were taking out their mill for maintenance purpose and therefore, production will be stopped from 1.8.97 till the complete maintenance work is done. Further, vide their letter dated 18.9.97 it was intimated by the appellant that mill was dismantled sinc...

Shree Mahavir Industries Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC61

1. The appellant, as a small scale unit, engaged in the manufacture of brass parts which are liable to central excise duty under Chapters 74, 83, 84, 87 etc. As a small scale unit, they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.93.2. During the manufacture of parts, certain amount of metal becomes waste and scrap. Appellants cleared such waste and scrap to another manufacturer for recycling into original metal rods. Metal so retrieved, is brought back and used by the appellant in the manufacture of parts. Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 is with regard to the aggregate value of specified (in the annexure to the Notification) goods cleared by a manufacturer. However, the value of captively consumed goods is to be excluded while computing the aggregate value.The impugned orders have held that the aggregate value of goods cleared by the appellants should be worked out by including the value of waste and scrap arising during the manufacture of parts and sent f...

Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Vs. Yusuf Momeen

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT64Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal as Commissioner has set aside the penalty on the respondent imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for being concerned with the liability of confiscation of US $ 7000 seized when one Mr. Mohammed Anwar Shaikh approached the respondent during the course, of search of a premises known as M/s. Kwality Ice Cream, Strand Building, Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Bombay, on 27-7-92 after coming to a finding that there were no premises by such a name or doubt the search and seizure operations of the department.2. Penalty was imposed without issue of show cause notice or hearing the appellant on the grounds :- (i) Search warrant for the premises bears the signature of respondent. (ii) Respondents prayed for return of Indian Currency of Rs. 50,120/-under seizure. (iii) Show cause notice and personal hearing and order issued were sent to the addresses of M/s. Kwality Ice Cream.3. Considered. The residential address and the evidence of having dispatched the notice...

Gujarat Electromelt Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants are manufacturers of ingots and billets of non-alloy steel. They were liable to central excise duty at compounded rate. The rate depended upon the installed capacity of production. They had opted for such payment under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules. Under the impugned order the Central Excise authorities have demanded duty on the basis of capacity of machinery installed in the appellant's factory.2. The appellant has challenged the above demand on the ground that Diesel Generating (DG) set installed in the appellant's factory had broken down and was not functional leading to non-operation of one mill. Appellant claims that no duty should be demanded in respect of that mill during the period of non-production. It is the appellant's contention that production capacity means the effective production capacity and installed capacity means purposeful installation of machinery. During the hearing of the case, learned Advocate of the appellant emphasized that since th...

C.C.E. Vs. Indian Polyfins Ltd. and Shalu

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT493Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue raised in both the above-mentioned appeals of the revenue is the same. Accordingly, they are taken up together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The respondents in both the cases are exporters of fabrics. They obtained intermediate goods namely, filament/partially oriented yarn under duty exemption certificate in terms of Notification No. 49/94 (NT) dated 22.9.94. The yarn so obtained was first texturised and thereafter woven into fabrics and then processed. These processes were carried out on job work basis by other parties for the respondents.Fabrics received back were finally cut and packed by the respondents and exported. Show-cause notices were issued alleging that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of receiving non-duty paid yarn under Notification No. 49/94 (NT) since most of the manufacturing processes were not carried out by the respondents themselves. Such Show-cause Notices were confirmed by the adjudicating authorities.However, when ...

Colgate Pamolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants have been denied capital goods eligibility under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 to: i) Rewinding machine combined with inkjet jet printing machine MC. Rs. 75,150/- on the ground by Additional Commissioner that manufacturer of soap, the final product, was complete without printing as printing is not required for making the product marketable. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the impugned machine is used for printing done on wrappers before manufacturing process and the printing had no connection with processing or production of goods, he upheld the denial of credit eligibility. a) The impugned Inkjet is used for printing specific details such as date of packing, price, etc. on soap wrapper with the help of rewinding machine. These details are required to be marked on the wrappers under the Standard Weights and Measures Act, 1963 and provisions of Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 as a mandatory requirement and soap cannot be sold/marketed without this require...

Manikgarh Cement Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC159Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue involved in all the three appeals, being the same, the three appeals are decided through a common order.3. The appellants are using explosives in their mines for blasting out limestones deposits. Limestone mines are not a part of the factory.This fact is not disputed. The credit of duty paid on 'explosives' has been claimed on the ground that use of explosives for extracting limestone which in turn, is used in the cement factory for manufacture of cement, is covered under Modvat credit rules. It is pleaded that the term "Input" has been defined to be goods which are used "IN of IN RELATION" to the manufacture of the final product. The explosives have been used in the process of extraction of limestone and the latter is used in the cement factory factory for manufacture of cement.Therefore, though the initial use of explosives is not in the factory premises, the intermediate product obtained through the use of explosives i.e. limestone is utilised in the cement factory. Th...

M/S. Daewoo Anchor Electronics Ltd. and Another Vs. Kishor Uka Makwana ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29/10/2003 in consumer complaint No.39/2002 passed by District Forum Nashik. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under :- Respondent No.1/org. complainant had purchased a T.V. manufactured by opponent No.1/appellant No.1 from opponent No.3/who is a dealer of opponent No.1 for consideration `16,390/- on 02/05/2000. Opponent No.2 is a Service Centre of opponent No.1. Said T.V. became non-functional after 1 years. Accordingly, respondent No.1/org. complainant had complained to org. opponent No.3, a dealer, who in turn instructed to approach org. opponent No.2/appellant No.2. However, opponent No.2/appellant No.2 had refused to repair the T.V. on the ground that warrantee period for the said T.V. has expired. Hence, he filed consumer complaint praying that opponents be ordered to repair the T.V. or to replace the T.V. and give guarantee of seven years. Opponents be directed to pay compensation of `5,000/- with...

Pcs Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Arguing on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 20,20,103/- confirmed as a result of denial of the benefit of concessional rale of duty of customs under Notification No. 13/97 which is inter alia applicable for specified inputs used in the manufacture of specified final products on the ground that the applicants did not use raw materials such as Copper Foil, Epoxy Resins etc., in the manufacture of copper clad laminates and penalty of amount equal to duty, ld. Counsel Shri R. Ravindran raises a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to raise the demand in the show cause notice and confirmed in the adjudication order. He draws our attention to Customs ( Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 1996 under which the demand has been raised and submits that Rule 8 of the above Rules makes it very clear that the differential duty demand can be raised only by the Assistant Commissioner or...