Mumbai Court November 2003 Judgments

N.H.B. Bearing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT268Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this case relates to classification of Grinding Media Steel Balls which were manufactured by the appellants during the period November 1987 to September 1992 and cleared on payment duty at the rate applicable to heading 73.26 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The department wanted to classify the goods under heading 84.82 of the said schedule. The demand of duty confirmed by the lower authority against the appellants for the above period is on this basis.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the classification issue is squarely covered in their favour by decisions of this Tribunal. He cites the following decisions:-Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. New Heaven Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd.Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. National Engineering India Ltd. Ld. Counsel also refers to the relevant tariff entries and submits that, for the period from 1.3.1988, there is a specific entry for the subject goods, which, according to him, is sub-heading 7326....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tirupati Weaves Pvt. Ltd.,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These four appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner's order by which, the CCE (Appeals) granted the input benefits to the respondents who are texturisers of yarn. The CCE (Appeals) considered the issues and granted the benefit after finding - i) Input credit would be eligible on packing material even though Tariff value have been fixed in terms of Section 3 (2) for texturised yarn, after relying upon Century Manufacturing Co. {1992 (60) ELT 3 (SC)} and that provisions of Section 4 to include the cost of packing in this case does not arise and that inputs viz. Synthetic yarn Chapter No. 54.02, Paper Tubes Chapter No. 48.22, Cartons Chapter No. 48.19, Lubrication Chapter No. 27.10.60 are infact used in manufacture of texturised yarn.are being decided by this common order. Since issue is the same Revenue has taken the ground in appeal as follows - Clause (iii) of proviso to Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 clearly stipulates that "MODVAT would not be avail...

Bayer Diagnostics Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT127Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common question for consideration in these appeals is the eligibility to the exemption contained in Entries 64 & 65 of the Table to notification 65/88. The Commissioner has passed his order in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to whom the Tribunal had remanded the matter to consider whether the exemption contained in these two entries were available to the goods that the appellant imported.2. Entry 64 of the Table to the notification exempts from duty Auto Analyser for Bio-chemistry with automatic printer, (component parts covered by notification 65/88). Entry 65 exempts from duty Photometric Auto Analyser. We are concerned in these appeals with two goods, the first is Seac CH 100 Computerised Semi-AutoAnalyser. The importer has claimed the benefit of the exemption contained in Entry 64 and the benefit has been denied on the ground that it is not the Autoanalyser but a semi AutoAnalyser. Similarly, the benefit of the exemption contained in Entry 65 has be...

Knoll Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT243Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged in its factory at Verna, Goa in the manufacture inter alia of Cremaffin, a medicament. We are concerned in this appeal with the quantities of the product that the appellant cleared in response to orders placed by government medical stores in various parts of the country. The invoices that were issued, while indicating the manufacturer to be Knoll Pharmaceuticals' factory at Verna, showed the consignee to be its depot Knoll Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Four copies of the invoices that have been enclosed to the appeal show the consignee to be Knoll Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Shop No. 18, Vinayaka Plazza, Vidyanagar, Margao. Notice issued to the appellant proposed to recover duty on the basis that it is the value of the goods, when cleared from the depot, that should be applied and not the value when it cleared from the factory. We are concerned with the clearances made between July and October 2000. After considering the cause shown and hearing the assessee, the Assistant...

J.K. Ansell Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery are prayed for in respect of an amount of duty of Rs. 9,52,064/- and equal amount of penalty. A demand of duty to the aforesaid extent has been confirmed against the appellants in respect of an intermediate product which emerged in the process of manufacture of their final product. The above penalty has been imposed on the party on the ground of clandestine removal of the said intermediate product.3. It appears to us that the vital issue involved in this case is whether the intermediate product is excisable or not. In their statement dt. 30.1.99 given by the appellants to officers of Central Excise, who visited their factory, they, inter alia, stated thus "dispersion has got stability upto 24 hrs. In other words the same can be used elsewhere. The compounded mixture has also got chemical stability but upto what extent that cannot be specified because we do not test chemical stability". This part of the statement, which has become handy for ...

Carbon Everflow Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC145Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner that electric overhead travelling crane installed in the appellant's factory did not comply with the definition of capital goods as contained in the explanation below Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57Q and hence the duty paid not available as credit under that rule.2. The counsel for the appellant relies upon the decisions of the Tribunal in Man Structurals Ltd. v. CCE 1996 (16) RLT 580 and in CCE v.Uttam Industrial Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and also upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE .3. The departmental representative contends that the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Telco v. CCE would apply to the facts of this case and thus support the Commissioner (Appeals) order.4. The reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) advances, in holding that crane did not qualify for consideration as capital goods, is that they were not used for producing o...

Star Oxochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT74Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This stay application and appeal is taken up for final disposal by this order after waiver of pre-deposit and with consent of both sides.2. Credit has been denied on urea used in the plant for Nitroxide absorption and its neutralization for purposes of pollution control as that would lead to an use not in relation to manufacture in relation of final product. The plea of use in manufacture of Oxalic acid made by the appellants was rejected since basic use was in treatment of effluents.3. From the schematic diagram of the plant produced, it is appeared that there is no separate effluent treatment plant as found by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The use is in the absorption column for pollution control of absorption of unwanted gases, without removal of such unwanted Nitric Oxide, production of Oxalic acid would not be commercial feasibility. The lower authorities have not cared to examine the facts or bring on record the technical opinion necessary to hold that the use is ...

R.R. Textiles and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Mahalaxmi Fabric Mills Ltd., the appellants herein, are manufacturers of fabrics and an assessee paying duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The other appellants are traders, besides the Director of the assessee company, Shri Jeetmal Parekh.2. Officers made out a case of manufacture and unaccounted duty paid removal of excisable goods. The lower authorities confirmed the confiscation liabilities duty demands and imposed penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q on the assessee and under Rule 209A on the other appellants. a) The orders requiring to be set aside as the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate have force to induce a reconsideration of the findings as regards duty and penalty arrived at. The submissions are- "..... (i) There was no proper stock taking of the fabrics on the day of visit of factory by Prev. staff was not taken. This can be seen from the statement recorded of Director Shri Jeetmal Parekh and S. S. Kothari C. Ex. I/c. The relevant portions have been ...

Modest Shipping (Agency) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Commr. of Cus.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(167)ELT25(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ('KVSS' for short) in view of the fact that the principal noticee namely M/s. Jindal Drilling & Industries ('M/s. Jindals' for short) has filed a declaration under KVSS and the same has been accepted in full and final settlement of the claim. However, it is the case of the Respondents that the penalty levied against the petitioners arises out of a separate and independent cause of action and, therefore, the declaration made by M/s. Jindals under KVSS and accepted by the Revenue cannot and does absolve the petitioners of their liability to pay the penalty.2. The facts relevant to the present case are that some time in February, 1989, a rig ED-HOLT imported by M/s. Jindals arrived at Bombay. The said rig was imported by M/s. Jindals pursuant to a contract awarded to them by ONGC for charter of a Jack up rig called ED-HOLT. On arrival of the rig, the petitioners, as age...

Rochem Separation Systems (i) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT852Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Gowri Shankar, Member (T) - The application by Rochem Separation Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. is for waiver of deposit of a sum of Rs. 1.38 crore demanded under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, penalty imposed of equal amount under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, Rule 25 of Cenvat Rules, 2001 and Cenvat Excise Rules, 2002. The application by Kamleshkumar Goel, its managing director, is for waiver of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of desalination plants.It cleared such plants either on payment of duty or as supply stores to the ships of Indian navy or coast guard in terms of entry 3 of the Table to Notification 64/95. It availed of the Modvat credit procedure (latter Cenvat Credit Procedure). It is stated that it was maintaining separate accounts for four types of inputs for the goods manufactured by it which are common. Notice issued to it demanded duty in terms of Rule 57CC for the period up to 30-3-2000, in terms of Rule 57AD from 31-3-2000 to ...