Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Suz-dent (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT364Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When the application for stay came up for hearing, we find that in the nature of the issue involved the appeal itself can be disposed of.We, therefore, dispense with the condition for pre-deposit and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The issue for consideration is whether value of certain dental equipments and hand pieces of dental chair imported by the appellant are to be added to the assessable value of the dental chair manufactured and cleared by the assessee.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of dental equipments/units classifiable under sub-heading No. 9016.00 and dental chairs and dentist's stool classifiable under sub-heading 9402.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have been importing certain dental equipments and hand pieces of dental chair. According to the appellant, such hand pieces were never assembled or fitted to the dental chair. They were sold in retail or along with the chair in their packed condition. As no manufacturing process was ca...

Creative Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the process of re-packing of Elmoluft 1A on behalf of Schenectady Beck India Ltd. They received the drug in bulk packs from Dr. Beck & Co. (I) Ltd, and repacked them into small marketable packages. They paid Central Excise duty on the repackaged goods. They also took credit of the duty paid on the bulk drug received by them. That activity of repacking was taken as manufacture and the bulk drug was treated as input and the repackaged drug as final product. Under the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has held that the appellants' activity of repacking did not amount to manufacture and consequently they could not have taken credit of the duty paid on the bulk drug and used the same for payment of duty on the repackaged goods. The impugned order has, therefore, demanded the amount taken as modvat credit and imposed penalty on the appellants.While doing so, no adjustment towards the duty paid on the repackaged goods has been made. The appellant...

Sanjivani (Takli) Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for stay arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise in so far as demand for duty of Rs. 32,00,667/- under Section 11A read with Rules 571 of the Central Excise Act and Rules made there under.2. The applicant is a manufacturer of sugar, molasses denatured spirit etc. He uses duty paid molasses in the manufacture of denatured spirit.This latter product is mostly used captively in the manufacture of country liquor. Since the final product, country liquor is non-exisable he pays 8% of the amount calculated on the price of denatured spirit determined on the basis of comparative price of the same product at which it is sold by other manufacturers. This, according to him, is the procedure laid down under Rule 57CC. The department's contention is that Rule 57CC is not applicable in a case when goods (denatured spirit) is captively consumed. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while...

Tata Ssl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the Assistant Collector of Central Excise vide his order dt. 5.1.1995 confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 10,04,132.17 on iron and steel products manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein during the period 3.2.93 to 17.1.94 by including the amounts paid to Steel Development Fund, and Engineering Goods Export Assistance Fund and including Joint Plant Committee Cess amount in the assessable value of the goods, denying the claim of the assesses for exclution of such amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dt.10.3.98 upheld the adjudication order holding that the levies namely SDF, EGEAF and JPC Cess do not come in the purview of Section 4(4) (d) (ii) of the Central Excise Act, and hence not deductible from the stock yard value. The assesses carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal which vide order No. 4038-4039/WZB/2000 dt. 14.11.2000 set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of the T...

Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT264Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd. The appellants have waived their right to be heard and requested to decide the case on merits. The learned DR pleads that the letter dated 22nd September, 1993 and enclosures thereto cannot be a substitute for regular refund claim. A proper claim has been filed only on 18 August, 1995. The provisions of Section 11B(1) stipulate that the claim has to be filed in the proper form as may be prescribed along with the required evidence. Therefore, the letter dated 22nd September, 1993 cannot be considered to be a claim under Section 11B(1). Having not submitted the refund application in proper proforma within 6 months from the relevant date, the claim of the appellants should be held as time-barred.2. On examining the case records it is noticed that the letter dated 22-9-1993 cannot be considered to be a substitute to the regular claim filed in Appendix-I on 18-8-1995. The claim has therefore been correctly held as time-barred b...

Trojan Jewellery and Shameer Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT713Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The Commissioner of Customs Air Port, Mumbai has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 22,92,446/- on shortage of 3040 gms. of gold and 300 cts.of diamonds respectively in terms of Notification No. 177/94 and has adjusted the confirmed duty against the amount already paid. We are therefore concerned only with the question of waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on M/s. Trojan Jewellery and Rs. 5 lakhs imposed upon Shri Sameer Shah, General Manager.3. It is brought to our notice by Ld. Counsel for the applicants that a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 24 lakhs has been furnished and is valid up to December 2003 and since Bank Guarantee amount covers even the penalty amounts, it is prayed that predeposit may not be directed. On the other hand Ld. DR points out that the bank guarantee is to be taken into account only for considering the waiver of predeposit of penalty by the company and not by the individual Shri Sameer Shah General Manager.4. As far as the General Manager is conc...

Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Prima facie we are inclined to take the view that the charges paid to the job worker who is doing the work of guniting and coating pipes is not liable to be added to the assessable value of the pipes supplied by the appellant. It is the contention of the learned DR that after the amendment to the statute and in the light of the definition of the term 'transaction value' the view taken by the Board in its circular dated 3-1-2001 cannot have any application.2. Prima facie we do not find any reason to take a different view from what has been explained in the circular even after the amendment of the statute and bringing the assessable value on the basis of transaction value. We, there fore, find that the appellant has made out a strong arguable case. In view of the above, the condition for pre-deposit is waived and there will be stay of recovery of the demand....

SetwIn Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT298Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After allowing the application for early hearing of the stay application, we take up the stay application for disposal.2. The applicant seeks stay of operation of the impugned order of suspension of CHA licence on the ground that the action was not immediate. In other words the contention of the applicant is that there was considerable time lag between the detection of the alleged offence committed by the CHA and the order of suspension of the licence issued.On noting that the enquiries against the CHA were conducted by the DRI and the fact of enquiry was communicated to the Commissioner only in July, 2003 we are of the view that prima facie it cannot be said that there has been inordinate delay in issue of the suspension order so as to justify an order of stay of operation of the suspension order. We therefore dismiss the stay application, 3. However, keeping in mind the fact that livelihood of the applicant is involved, we fix the appeal itself for out of turn hearing on 14th Nov...

Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC319

1. Appellants are aggrieved against the demands of duty and penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, since the debit of Rs. 3,07,200/-made in RG 23A Pt.II on 01/03/97 pursuant to a letter direction from the respondents officer on the alleged shortage of 40.432 M.T of Zinc ingots found short in the input stocks. The above said debits were confirmed by the Commissioner under Rule 9 (2) read with proviso to Section 11A(1) towards the duty on Zinc ingots found short. Penalty under Section 11AC amounting to Rs.3,07,200/- was imposed besides a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q for violation of Rule 47. Hence this appeal.2. After considering the submissions and the material on record, it is found :- a) Supreme Court in the case of CCE Jaipur v. Reghuveer (India) Ltd., (2000(118) ELT 311 (SC) has held that provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have no application to any action under Rule 571 and limitation there under are not an omnibus provision. The demands of dut...

Jewel Papers P. Ltd., Jewel Paper Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC292

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PolyCoated Paper and Paperboard which are liable to central excise duty under Chapter Heading 48. Appellants also availed themselves of modvat credit in respect of inputs. In the process of manufacture, waste and scrap arise. Part of the waste is the input itself i.e. paper. Some waste is of paper which had been coated. The question raised in these appeals is the dutiability of such waste, particularly since the appellants are availing themselves of modvat credit. While the waste products remain wholly exempt from duty under Notification Nos. 38/90 and 14/92 etc.under the impugned order it has been ordered that they will not be eligible to clear the goods since they had taken modvat credit.2. The contention of the appellant is that taking of modvat credit on the inputs is no ground for denying exemption. Appellant has pointed out that Rule 57D of Modvat Rules specifically provides that credit of specified goods allowed in respect of ...