Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Cc Ex. Vs. Electro Appliances

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT233Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7.4.98.2. The issue raised is whether Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in holding that an application by the department under Section 35-E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order of approval of classification list passed by the Assistant Commissioner is not maintainable. Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that such an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is not a quasi judicial order and therefore, not appealable. He accepted the contention raised by the respondent-assessee that the course available with the department was to direct the Assistant Commissioner to reassess the correct amount payable following the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act.3. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue before us that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is one in the nature of quasi judicial order and therefore, an appeal would lie under Sect...

Searle (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue raised in this appeal relates to the interpretation of the provisions contained under Notification No. 245/83 dated 13.9.83.Explanation in Clause (1) of the above notification reads as follows:- "In calculating the value of the said medicines the amount of excise duty payable, if any, shall be deducted before allowing the discount from the retail price referred to in the said price list." According to the appellant, the excise duty referred in the explanation should be taken as excise duty as well as special excise duty. In support of its contention reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE Indore 1999(81) ECR 485.It is seen that the ratio of the above decision has been subsequently followed by this Tribunal in its further decision in Medley Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs 2000(120) ELT 368(Tribunal ) and Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v.Commr. Of Customs & Central Excise, Vadodara...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Kaybee Mantex Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC318

1. Revenue has come in appeal agent the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting credit on paper tubes used for packing of yarn by the respondent. The Commissioner has found that loose yarn could not be taken to manufacturer fabrics until usual on such cases and then considered that inputs eligible provoked there value is included.2. The demand of credit on paper tubes as recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) is "...... on ground that the same are not used in or in relation of the manufactures of final product i.e. texturised yarn." 3. Revenue has taken the grounds that the demand was on the ground that tariff values fixed for Texturised Yarn do not include cost of inputs and the Assistant Commissioner had held that the assessee has failed to establish that the cost of paper tube had been included in the tariff values, therefore credit should be denied on paper tubes since modvat on packing material is available only in case when final products pay duty under Section 4 on advalor...

Madhukar Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal before her for failure to deposit Rs 10 lakhs and execute a bank guarantee of Rs 5 lakhs. The applicant was required to deposit duty of Rs 36.90 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 3.70 lakhs.2. The applicant, which is a sugar mill, is also engaged in the manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol and potable ethyl alcohol.Denatured ethyl alcohol is subject to excise duty. Potable ethyl alcohol is not excisable under the Act. The applicant utilised for the manufacture of alcohol molasses that arose in its factory and the molasses that it purchased from outside. It did not pay duty on the molasses that was manufactured in its factory, claiming the exemption contained in notification 67/95. This notification exempts from duty goods manufactured in a factory and utilised in that factory for manufacture of excisable goods which are liable to duty (other than those specified such as clearance to 100% export oriented ...

Zandu Pharmaceuticals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT382Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of P.P.Ayurvedic medicament falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 3003.30 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing exemption from payment of Central Excise duty thereon in terms of Notification No. 32/89 CE dt. 1.3.89 as amended by Notification No. 9/93 dt. 28.2.93 during the period 1.10.92 to 28.2.1994. Inquiries revealed that during the course of manufacture of the above case, intermediate products either in liquid or dry forms arise and these are known as Kashay, Quatha, Ghan which are Saps and Extracts of vegetable falling under Chapter sub heading No. 1301.90. Since the final products i.e. P.P.medicaments were chargeable to nil rate of duty under Notification No.32/89 as amended, the intermediate products were held to be liable to duty at the rate applicable to products of Chapter sub heading 1301.90 demand was raised on 55297 Kg. Of Ghan valued at Rs. 2,08,82,647/-, by show cause notice dt. 29.9.97 fo...

Enva Chem (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT344Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of predeposit of duly of Rs. 17,83,382/- and penalty of Rs. 5,50,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. Use demand arises as a result of holding that the applicants had defaulted in payment of excise duty in terms of the fortnightly scheme provided under the Rules, and were therefore required to pay excise duty for clearance of each consignment by debit to the account current. The applicant's payment by utilization of Cenvat credit has been objected to by the Commissioner.2. We have heard both sides and perused Clause (e) and (b) of Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules. We do not see prima acie force in the submissions of the applicant that there is an option in Clause (b) for use of cenvat credit for discharge of duty liability, in view of the language of Clause (e) of Rule 173G which clearly stipulates that when the manufacturer forfeits the facility to pay the dues in instalments for a period of two mont...

Ceat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT438Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant has filed an application dated 4-9-2003 praying that the appeal which was dismissed for want of production of Order-in-Original may be restored to the original number and the appellants permitted to submit a copy of the Order-in-original dated 31-1-1991 as desired by the Tribunal.2. They have inter alia stated in their application that as the case was more than 12 years old, the file could not be located. However, after their great attempts they have been able to locate the relevant Order-in-original.3. We have heard Shri H.C. Daruwalla, ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants. Shri K.V. Bablani, Jt. CDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he opposed the prayer for restoration.4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find that since the appellant had filed a photocopy of the said order-in-original and they are willing to file the Original Order, we find it reasonable and also in the interest of justice to allow the said ROA. Accordingly, the resto...

R.K. Patel Tobacco Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing for some time on the application for waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs. 2,08,000/- confirmed on unbranded Chewing Tobacco falling under Chapter Heading No. 2404.49 cleared during the period 20.5.94 to 31.7.94, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after dispensing with predeposit, we hear the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants are manufacturers of branded tobacco and they also manufactured unbranded tobacco chewing which is an intermediate product for the manufacture of branded tobacco. During the period in dispute, unbranded tobacco valued at Rs. 5,22,000/- was cleared for captive consumption. On these goods duty liability of Rs. 2,08,800/- arose as a result of issue of Notification No. 23/94 dt. 20.5.94 by which unbranded chewing tobacco was not made liable to duty when cleared for this captive consumption.3. The appellants cited before us the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory...

C.C.E. Vs. Jagdamba Textile Engineers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT504Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondent is a manufacturer of textile machinery parts namely, 'Electrical Yarn Heating & Stabilising Devices' and 'Vapour Phase Yarn Heating & Stabilising Evies'. On 16.2.94, Central Excise officers visited his factory and made out a case that the respondent had violated Central Excise Rules by not entering their production from 2.2.94 to 16.2.94, in the statutory Book, RG-I . The goods involved were valued at around Rs. 41.6 lakhs. Subsequently, under adjudication order dated 17.8.95, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat confiscated the goods under Rule 173Q (1)(b) of Central Excise Rules and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the respondent under the same Rule. An option was given to the respondent to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of fine. The respondent approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal and quashed the adjudication order. Commissioner went by the fact that goods in question had ...

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC160Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery arise out of the Commissioner of Cen. Excise & Customs, Aurangabad who has confirmed the following demands and imposed penalties as under: (1) Central Excise duty of Rs. 21,54,92,842/- on a quantity of 3,35,632.418kms of optical fibres manufactured in the 100% EOU unit of the applicants (this unit was set up in March 2001) cleared clandestinely to their DTA unit (set up in 1993 and in 1995) and merged in a single DTA unit in January 1998) for further clearance to domestic market. (2) Central excise duty of Rs. 51,69,39,050/- on a quantity of 635625.7 kms of optical fibres manufactured in the 100% EOU unit and clandestinely cleared to the domestic market under the invoices to the DTA to show as if the same were manufactured in the DTA unit; (3) Central Excise duty of Rs. 21,63,60,797/- on a quantity of 9913 kgs of preforms manufactured in the 100% EOU unit and cleared clandestinely to DTA unit. All the above demands hav...