Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Hivoltrans Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Hivoltrans Electricals Pvt. Ltd., manufacturer of electrical transformers entered into a contract with Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. and with Tata Projects Ltd. for supply to each quantities of electrical transformers that he manufactured. The transformers were entitled to be supplied to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board in pursuance of a contract between that body on the one hand and Asea Brown Boveri, or Tata Projects for use in projects which were financed by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. At the relevant time, if the exemption for duty was in terms of notification 108/95 to goods supplied to projects financed by the United Nations or an international organisation approved by the Government of India. The explanation to the notification explains in Clause (a) that an international organisation means an international organisation to which the central government is has declared with provisions of the schedule to the United Nations privilege and imitation 1947 was appl...

Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(186)ELT70Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal of Sarabhai Chemicals P. Ltd. is directed against the order of remand dated 24.7.1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the refund of Central Excise duty paid by the appellants in respect of physician samples. The physician samples in question were exempt from Central Excise duty under Notification NO. 48/77 dated 1.4.1977. This exemption was denied to the appellants and as a result, the appellants originally cleared the goods on payment of duty. But, later on, they filed a refund claim which was allowed by the original authority. The impugned remand order in question was passed on an appeal filed by the Revenue against the sanctioning of the refund. The reasons for remand are that, the original authority had not examined the aspect of unjust enrichment and that there was an appeal filed in the Supreme Court relating to the very issue against the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Advent Pharma (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT346Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present appeal arises out of Central Excise Valuation of Metronidazole I.P. manufactured and sold by the respondents. This drug was under statutory price control during the relevant period. The appellants adopted the maximum sale price notified under the Drug Price Control Order, 1987 for the purpose of determining the assessable value of Metronidazole I.P. The dispute was raised by the Revenue authorities holding that the respondents had received some additional amounts through debit notes from certain buyers and accordingly demanded Central Excise duty on such additional realisations. The respondents resisted the demand on the ground that the valuation provisions in Central Excise Law contain a specific provision that where the goods are sold under statutorily fixed price, such statutory price would constitute the assessable value and, therefore, the correct duty had been paid by the respondents. This submission of the respondents found favour with the Commissioner (Appeals)....

Birla Vxl Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC316

"M/s. Birla VXL Ltd., manufactured soda ash. In a visit, the officers found 1245.75 MTs soda ash packed in 1115 bags which were not recorded in RG-1 register. The assesses claimed that these were factory sweeping and that they were not soda ash and, therefore, no entries were made in the register. These goods were seized. Show cause notice was issued. Before the Commissioner the argument was made that the goods were seized. Show cause notice was issued. Before the Commissioner the argument was made that the goods were not removed from the licensed premises and therefore, the allegation of evasion cannot be made and seizure will not be sustained. It was claimed that factory sweepings were subjected to laboratory test and only such lots which could be used for the manufacture of sodium silicate or any other industrial application were marketed It was claimed that before such marketing, the entries were made in RG-1. The Commissioner denied their submissions and ordered confiscation of t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Texplast Engineers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has filed this appeal as the Commissioner appeals found as follows - "8. I do not find any legal infirmity in the reasoning given by the Assistant Commissioner. Classification in respect of the subject item was revised in Oct. 1992. The claim for refund of duties had been claimed by the appellants under Section 11B of the Act in the month of February, 1993. There is no legal basis in the appellant's claim for application of General Law Limitation when there exists a specific limitation with regard to refund of Central Excise duty under the Act itself. Therefore, it was incumbent upon this authority to have examined the appellant's case for refund in accordance with the requirement of Section 11B of the Act. There is no dispute on the point that after 12.10.92, the appellants were eligible for credit of duties paid on the Intermediate products - HDPE Tapes. It was accordingly required that any benefit which may have become available within the period of limitation and claime...

Vrijesh Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,54,180/- and penalty of Rs. l,25,000/-we find that it was possible to decide the appeal itself.Hence after dispensing with the requirement of pro-deposit we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides since the principal grievance of the applicant is that of contravention of principles of natural justice.2. The issue in dispute relates to admissibility of the benefit under Notification 203/1992 which has been denied on (he ground that condition No. V(a) of the notification has been violated as the goods manufactured were exported after availment of input stage credit under Rule 57A.3. We find that the contention of the appellants that that the show cause notice was not received by them is prima facie well founded as the notice was issued to an address at Turbhe while the licence granted to the appellants clearly communicates their Nariman Point a...

Genesis Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT496Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Genesis, the appellant, took credit between December 1998 and December 1999 of the duty shown to have been paid on a consignment of cold railed cold annealed steel coils that it received from the three dealers. Investigation by the department disclosed that the goods cleared on payment of duty by the manufacturers to the three dealers cleared after payment of duty, consisted of such steel coils of different dimensions. Notice dated 3.12.2001 was therefore issued to the appellant and these three dealers, Dhakalia Steel Corporation, Amritlal Korhari and Doshi Enterprises proposing denial of credit on the ground that no duty had been paid and also proposing penalty. The Additional Commissioner, whose order has been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed the proposal in the notice, denied credit approximately Rs 1.89 lakhs to the assessee, and imposed on it, a penalty of equal amount. He also imposed a penalty of Rs 10000/- each on the dealers. Hence this appeal.2...

Finolex Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is a dispute case of Modvat credit. The appellants have two units, one at Ratnagiri and the other at Pune. The Pune unit uses the PVC Resin for the manufacture of PVC pipes. The Ratnagiri unit despatched a consignment if P.V.C. resin, on payment of duty to a Surat party. On testing the material Surat consumer found certain defects in the material. Instead of sending the balance material back to the manufacturing unit, the appellants diverted the material from Surat to Pune Unit wherein the same was used for manufacture of pipes. The duty paying document, were originally in the name of Surat customer. The appellants were, therefore, served with a show-cause notice stating that, the credit of Rs. 87042/- was irregular. It is alleged that, either the provisions of Rules 173H or 173L or the despatch under Rule 57F (2) should have been followed to cover the movement.3. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) enumerates the following grounds for disallowing the credit. "I also find ...

Virama Laminates P. Ltd., Antony Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. R Ravindran, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s.Virama Laminates P. Ltd, Shri. R.K. Ghadge, Consultant appeared on behalf of M/s. Antony Garages Ltd., Shri. D.D. Gwalani, ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of In-coach Builders, Shri. Prakash Shah, ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Bharat Coach Pvt. Ltd. and Shri. J.C. Patel, Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Bharati Work Shop. The Revenue was represented by Shri. S. Singhal, Ld. JDR.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the officers of the Preventive Branch of Excise Department made surprise visit to the factory of the appellant No. 1 on 23.12.1994. It was observed from the records maintained by the appellant No. 1 that the LA sheets manufactured on job work basis and cleared by them back to the suppliers of the raw materials was such that the suppliers who have sent the raw materials were using the said L.A. Sheets in the manufacture of bus body. It is the contention of the department that the appellants ...

A.R. Gupta, BipIn Gupta, PravIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC413

1. Appeals 16/92, 44/92 and 45/92 are by A.R. Gupta, Bipin Gupta and Pravin Gupta against the order of the Commissioner dated 30.9.1991.Appeals 241/92, 242/92, 243/92 are by these three person against the order of the Commissioner dated 19.12.91. Appeals 281, 282 & 283/92 by these persons against the order of the Commissioner dated 19.12.1991.Appeals 1778/94 1779, 1780 are also by these three person against the order of the Commissioner dated 14.9.1993. This last order of the Commissioner is also impugned in the appeals 667/94 by J.K. Yagnik, 668/94 by Vinod Jatia and 1782/94 by H.P. Daga & Co.2. In these orders, the Commissioners have found that defective cold roll sheets and coils imported by various firms and cleared without payment of duty in terms of exemption contained in notification 116/88 were not utilised in the manufacture of goods to be exported, but disposed of by sale. They had therefore demanded duty totalling on these goods. They have further found that the goo...