Mumbai Court December 2003 Judgments

Gobind Glass Industries Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC569

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant company is manufactured sheet glass and figured glass of different thicknesses falling under Chapter Heading No. 70 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting Central Excise duty @ 20% adv. from 1.3.1994. (prior to that date, the products were chargeable to specific rate of duty based upon thickness and area of the sheets). They were selling their products at their factory gate as well as through their branch offices and consignment agents. The entire production was cleared from the factory on payment of duty by adopting price charged for the goods sold at the factory gate as the assessable value for all the clearances. Deductions at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per MM/Sq.mtrs. for equalised freight and Rs. 2.5 per MM/Sq.mtrs. for special packing charges were claimed in some cases; while in some other cases, the freight equalisation was claimed as Rs. 5/- per sq. mtrs./mm and special packing charges was claimed as R...

Abee Info-consumables Ltd., P.B. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications for waiver of pre-deposit arose out of a common order of the Commissioner wherein he demanded Central Excise duty under Section 11A(2) of Rs. 54,02,538/- from the appellant company, interest under Section 11AB, confiscated the excess goods found in the appellants' factory, imposed penalties of Rs. 21,69,982/- and Rs. 15 lakhs under 11AC and 173Q under Central Excise Act and Rules respectively, Rs. 2,000/- as penalty under Rule 226, Rs. 15 lakhs as penalty on the chairman & managing director of the appellant company under Rule 209A and Rs. 5 lakhs as penalty on the director under the same rule. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeals can be decided at this stage itself. We therefore proceed to take up the appeals for disposal, after waiving deposit.2. The issue pertains to alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal of excisable goods. The appellant company manufactures printer ribbons in spool and cartridges, audio cassettes etc. Base...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pratisthan Alloys Castings P.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT778Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Shri S. S. Bhagat, learned SDR. states that the impugned goods namely Thermocouple Tips, classifiable under Hearing No.90.33 is not covered under Serial No. 4 in the Table annexed to Rule 57Q. Hence, the same can not be allowed credit of duty as capital goods. He reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the orders passed by the lower authorities are not correct or legal.2. Shri M.A. Karim, learned consultant appearing for the respondents states that another Bench of the Tribunal has passed order No.C-IV/1150-57/WZB/03 dated 19.11.2003 allowing credit of duty on the impugned goods in the Appellants own case, but for different periods, holding the same eligible for credit of duty under Rule 57Q applying earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Steels Ltd. Vs.CCE, Pune - 1998 (98) ELT 288 (Tribunal). I, however, find that the copy of the said order submitted by the learned consultant is hand-written and is difficult to read. In all fairness to...

Jindal Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC399

1. We have heard Dr. D.M. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri K.L. Bablani, learned JCDR in respect of this stay petition. We find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. As such after allowing the stay petition unconditionally and with the consent of both sides we take up the appeal.2. As per the facts on record the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods failing under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing Cenvat credit under the provisions of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.The inputs on which the credit was being availed, i.e., CR Coils, was being manufactured by their sister unit situated at Vasind. During the period 01/07/2000 to 28/02/2001 the appellant received certain inputs and availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on the said inputs. However, there was some dispute about the assessable value of the inputs at Vasind unit which resulted in re-determination of the a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kavya Processors

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT124Tri(Mum.)bai

1. None appeared for the respondents. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned S.D.R.appearing for the department states that the department's appeal is against the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority reducing the mandatory penalty of Rs. 4,07,254/- imposed by the adjudicating authority. He states that the reason for imposition of penalty was delay in payment of duty of Rs. 4,07,254/- under the compounded levy scheme and the delay was for the period of two days.2. After hearing the learned S.D.R. and perusal of the case records, I find that the delay in payment is only for two days for which interest of Rs. 802/- has also been charged. As such, the penalty of Rs. 4,07,254/- imposed under the order in original is excessive and the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order reducing the same to Rs. 50,000/- can not be faulted. In fact, considering the facts of the case, even the amount of Rs. 50,000/- appears to be disproportionately high particularly when any benefit which may have accrued to t...

Skyways Apparel, Shri Kailash Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the applications for waiver of pre deposit of duty of Rs 18,61,700/-, and a penalty of equal amount imposed upon the firm, as well as the penalties of Rs 2.00 lakhs on Rakesh Jain and Rs 50,000/- on Kailash Jain, the partners of the firm, we found that it was possible to dispose of the appeals themselves.Hence, after waiving pre deposit, we proceed to hear and decide the appeals, with the consent of both sides, as the basic grievance raised before us is that of violation of the principles of natural justice.2. The facts are that aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner confirming the duty demand and imposing penalties on the ground inter alia that the importer had disposed of the imported material in the local market and exported some consignment manufactured out of indigenous material of inferior quality, the appellants preferred appeals along with applications for waiver of pre deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Act which were decided ...

Sterlite Opticals Technologies Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC285

1. Vide the impugned order Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Aurangabad, apart from confirming demands of duties and imposing penalties had also confiscated the capital goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30 crores.2. Vide stay order dt. 28.10.2003 the Tribunal after observing that the appellant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 10 crores and a further sum of Rs. 3 crores was deposited at the stage of investigation and a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 11.74 crores was furnished and the goods valued at approximately Rs. 37.60 crores is in the custody of the department, dispensed with the condition of predeposit of balance amount of duties and penalties and stayed the recoveries thereof.Subsequently, the appellants jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide its letter dt. 5.11.03 directed the applicant to slop operations of the machineries confiscated under the impugned order to enable the enforcement of...

S.C. Brothers and Shri K.D. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT328Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Duty demand of Rs 2,86,070/- has been confirmed against M/s S.C.Brothers, who are manufacturers of industrial machinery and equipment, on scrap clandestinely cleared by them during the period 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, and a penalty of equal amount has been imposed upon the company, and a penalty of Rs 50,000/- has been imposed on its partner.3. The facts are that on 16.3.1999 the Central Excise officers visited the unit, recorded statement of store keeper, other employees and transporters. They found that the appellants were maintaining three types of challans for finished goods, one finished goods for which excise invoices for which excess in stores were prepared, one for non billing challans prepared for return of raw materials/components' etc) and security gate passes on which scrap was cleared. Perusal of-the three types of challans showed that they could not be correlated with the excise invoices. Further investigation was carried out which revealed that scrap had been cle...

Accra Pac (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved is whether Denatured Ethyl Alcohol classified under Chapter Heading 22.04 of CETA as an intermediate product, in the manufacture of cosmetics is dutiable. The appellants are manufacturers of cosmetic products falling under Chapter 33 of CETA. They procure Ethyl Alcohol from the open market. Ethyl Alcohol's consumption and distribution is controlled by State Excise Authorities. Ethyl Alcohol procured by the appellants is kept under bond by the State Excise authorities. As and, when the same is required in the production of alcohol based cosmetics, it is denatured by the State Excise authorities by making it unfit for human consumption and given to the appellants for further use.2. The Department's contention is that denatured Ethyl Alcohol is an excisable product which come into existence before it is used in the manufacture of cosmetics and therefore duty is payable as the product falls under Chapter 22 of CEA. In the impugned order the Commissioner upheld this c...

Progressive Steel Processors Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute is whether the process of cutting, slitting of hot rolled bars and cold rolled bars of iron, non alloy steel and alloy steel coils etc of width of more than 600 mm into narrower widths, carried out by the appellants herein amounts to manufacture so as to result in the emergence of fresh excisable product and consequent duty liability.2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee by several orders of the Tribunal including that in their own case (Order No C-II/1395-1406/03WZB dated 13.6.2003 passed on 14.5.2003) wherein the Tribunal has held that such process does not amount to manufacture giving rise to fresh excisable products. The Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order in the case of CCE vs Bemcee Ltd 2003 (151) ELT 545.3. Following the ratio of the above order, which is on all fours with the facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned order by which duty of Rs 1,24,54,744/- has been confirmed, penalty ...