Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT415Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 3,41,971 /- and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2. The duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the consignment of pharmaceutical samples of medicament that the applicant cleared on the ground that their value has been underdeclared. The applicant valued these base samples for assessment on their cost manufacture. The basis for the department's action is that by application of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 the assessable value should be 115% of the cost of manufacture.3. We do not prima facie find substance in the contention of the Counsel for the applicant that it is the actual cost of manufacture that should apply. Doubtless, it is true, as he says, that none of the Valuation Rules specifically deals with a situation where the goods are not sold but cleared (otherwise than captively consumed), Rule 8 refers to the goods which are not sold but captively consumed. In this situation, the residuary Rule 11, which provides for...

J.M. Shares and Stock Brokers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income T ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Mum.)1052

1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XIV, Mumbai, dt. 17th Sept., 1996 for asst. yr. 1992-93.The first ground relates to disallowance of Rs. 11,01,379 on account of issue expenses on the convertible portion of partly convertible debentures (PCD) and expenses on issue of shares Rs. 68,096 claimed under Section 35D which was disallowed on the ground that the assessee is not an industrial undertaking.2. The facts of the case are that some convertible debentures were issued during the year and convertible part of debentures of the face value of Rs. 50 was to be converted into five shares of Rs. 10 each and as a matter of fact, these debentures got converted into equity shares, during the year itself. And under the circumstances, the AO treated the expenditure on account of issue of convertible part of the debentures also as expenses incurred on issue of shares (sic). The learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO by appreciating the fact that the...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Adani Exports Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(198)ELT335(Bom)

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The applicant has preferred this Reference under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 for answering the following questions:(i) Whether the show cause notice dated 28.3.2000, was barred by time under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.(ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that, the larger period of limitations prescribed under proviso to Section 28(1) was not applicable in the present case.(iii) Whether the Tribunal should not have held that the Respondents were clearly guilty of suppression of facts in as much as they had produced incorrect Transfer Letters before the Customs at Mumbai Port for obtaining Release Advices.(iv) Whether the Tribunal was correct in not deciding the questions of liability to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty for which the notice was also issued under Section 124(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, apart from the demand of duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.(v) Whether or not the question o...

Opal Fabrics and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC526

1. This order seeks to dispose of eight appeals, two each by Opal Fabrics and Bhagatram Parmanand are against the common order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat By this order, the Commissioner has demanded customs and excise duty on different goods form each of these appellants. He has imposed penalties under both the Customs and Central Excise Act on each of the appellants.2. We shall first consider the appeal of Opal Fabrics. This appellant is a 100% export oriented unit at Sachin in Surat, licensed for the manufacture of grey fabrics. The unit was visited by the officers on 24.5.00 and the stock subjected to verification. This resulted in the shortage of 15990.200 kgs. of twisted yarn. Further investigation disclosed to the officers the fact that the twisted yarn has been supplied to this appellant by Bhagatram Parmanand another 100% export oriented unit, who had made it out of imported polyester yarn that it received without payment of duty and supplied to t...

Ludhiana Woolen and Silk Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide stay order dt. 30.5.2003 M/s. Annapurna Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Ltd. were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh, which they have complied with. The impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) disposes of two appeals one filed by M/s. Annapurna Dyg. & Ptg. Mills Ltd. and the other filed by Ludhiana Woolen & Silk Mills on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Nobody is present on behalf of M/s. Ludhiana Woolen & Silk Mills in spite of today's notice of hearing having been sent to them well in advance. We also note from records that on the last date of hearing the bench mentioned further orders on the application of M/s.Ludhiana Woolen & Silk Pvt. Ltd. would be passed, when the matter came up for compliance. Accordingly we take up application for stay M/s Ludhiana Woolen & Silk Pvt. Ltd.. We find that vide the impugned orders, the authorities below have imposed personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- only on...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Welding Rods Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT86Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Consequent upon an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the assessee was entitled to deduct the cost of transportation from the sale price of the welding electrodes manufactured by it to arrive at their assessable value, it filed a claim for refund of the duty paid by it in this regard The Assistant Collector dismissed the claim on the ground that the evidence, as specified by the Commissioner (Appeals), of actual payment of duty had not been produced by the claimant. The assessee approached the Gujarat High Court, which passed an order on 26-7-1991 directing the Assistant Collector to decide whether or not refund should be granted in accordance with law. The Assistant Collector thereafter sanctioned the refund in September 1991. The notice issued to the assessee in March 1992 proposed recovery of the refund on the ground that the requirement contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act, that the incidence of duty should not have been transferred to any perso...

Venmitra Systems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT505Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of populated printed circuit board manufactured by the appellant. In the classification list that it filed, it claimed such boards to be classifiable as parts of machinery of which they form part in heading 8431. This heading covers parts of lifts. Notice issued to the manufacturer proposed to classify the goods in heading 8542.00. This hading covers integrated circuit and microassemblies. After considering the cause shown by the manufacturer, the Asst. Commissioner accepted its contention that the printed circuit boards would be classifiable as parts of the machine into which they were designed to be fitted. The department appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded on his view that the populated printed board would be a microassemblies ordered classification of the goods under heading 8542.00. Hence this appeal.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. We have read the memorandum of appeal and o...

K.C. Jain, Dinesh Jain, Girish Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order Commissioner Central Excise has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 59,83,306/- against M/s. Girish Textile Industries along with imposition of personal penalty of equal amount under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has been imposed on Shri Dinesh Jain, partner of M/s. Girish Textile Industris, and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed on Shri K.C. Jain, Projector of M/s.Gauray Textile Processors and Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on Shri Pratap Lalchand Agnani, owner of tempo. Such duties have been confirmed and penalties imposed on the findings that M/s. Girish Textile Industries has manufactured and cleared the processed fabrics without payment of duty to M/s. Gauray Textile Processors without recording the same in the statatory records and clandestinely removed. The above findings is based upon the statement of various persons recorded during the post seizure investigation. The sei...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Cement Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Notice issued to the assessee proposed to deny modvat credit of the duty paid on the cement clinker that it received on the ground that the quantity that it received was less than the quantity shown to have been sent to it by the invoice issued by the supplier of the clinker. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice, denying the credit. The assessee appealed the order. The Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd v. CCE 1998 (74) ECR 361 held that since the losses in transit of the clinker was due to natural causes, credit should not be denied. This appeal by the department questions this finding.2. I have heard the departmental representative. Mr. R. Viswanathan, who claimed to represent the appellant, stated, in reply to a question by me, that he was not an employee of the respondent. He also stated that he was not qualified otherwise as an authorised representative. He was therefore not heard.3....

Troikaa Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai

1. As per the facts on record the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of P&P medicaments falling under Chapter heading 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period the appellants were availing the benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 01/03/1986. As such no duty was paid by the appellants for the period April, 1992 to September, 1992. Subsequently on reaching the duty slab the appellants filed another price list wherein the wholesale price remained the same but the assessable value was claimed on the lower side on account of deduction of excise duty element.2. The appellants were given a show cause notice alleging that during the initial clearance of Rs. 20 lakhs on which the appellant had not paid any duty, they were collecting the same wholesale price from their customers, thus indicating that the duty was being collected from the customers but the same was not being paid to the Revenue. The said show cause notice was, however, dropped by the Assis...