Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals have been filed, one by the assessee and the other by the department. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has held that the show cause notice dated 26 June 97 invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 alleging suppression and misstatement was not an order and is not maintainable and therefore the demand is hit by time bar for non maintenance of proper records of the assessee with its yield and usage of the bagasse pulp to establish the exemption claimed. The order imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs on the assessee. The assessee has filed Appeal E/917/98 and the department has filed Appeal E/2506/99 challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of waste paper based kraft paper and bagasse based kraft paper at Kalyan. As far as bagasse based kraft paper is concerned, the assessee was claiming full exemption from payment of duty i...

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing the matter for some time, we find that it is possible to decide the appeal at the stay stage itself. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to decide the appeal.2. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned Advocate for the appellants states that Cigarettes were specified as final product eligible for modvat credit under Notification No. 10/2000-CE (NT) dtd. 01/03/2000. The appellants filed a declaration under Rule 57G in respect of the inputs for Cigarettes. They also filed a declaration in respect of the inputs lying in stock as on 01/03/2000 and took credit of duty on such inputs.In the impugned order in original, the Deputy Commissioner denied the credit of duty on inputs lying in stock on the ground that such inputs were not eligible inputs since Cigarette was not an eligible final product prior to 01/03/2000. In the order in appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the credit on the ground that the inputs in question cannot be visualized as receive...

Jindal Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT921Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Capital goods credit has been denied on (1) indicating flow relay, and (2) seal, to the appellants herein who are a cold rolling mill engaged in the manufacture of CR strips, etc.3. The use of the indicating flow relay has been explained as for monitoring the concentration as well as flow of acid according to operational parameters. The seal is a part of the valves used in valve regulator pneumatic cylinder for controlling the flow of oil into the rolling equipment /machinery. Considering the use of these two items and applying the case law cited by the learned Counsel, namely, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Polymers v. CCE, Meerut - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 569 (T) = 1998 (25) RLT 838 and CBEC Circular No.276/110/96-TRU, dated 2-2-1996 it is clear that both the items in dispute are eligible to capital goods credit. I therefore set aside the order denying credit and imposing penalty and allow the appeal....

Rapicut Carbides Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the decision dated 29.2.1996 of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, whereunder he has confirmed recovery of Rs. 11.45.366/- wrongly availed of by the appellant during the period from January 1990 to December 1990 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh.2. The assessee is a company manufacturing tungsten and tungsten carbide since 1978. After the new Tariff came into force, they have been classifying the said product under Chapter Heading 8206 and thereafter under Heading 8207. The classification lists have been approved from time to time. As far as certain tungsten products namely T/C. Incerts, nibs, buttons etc were classified under Chapter Heading 8209. During the year 1988 the appellant sought reclassification of the product under Chapter Heading 8207. This was necessitated due to similar products manufactured by M/s Sandvik Asia Ltd. A Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.1994 was issued calling upon the assessee as to why the final pro...

Swastik Chemical Industries Vs. Commr. of Customs and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT979Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants manufacture Chlorinated Paraffin Oil with liquid chlorine as the input where Hydrochloric Acid is a by-product.Hydrochloric acid was not declared in their first declaration dated 5-10-93, but was later declared on 16-6-94. For the period December, 93 to March, 94, Modvat credit was disallowed for that portion which was contained in the by-products. Some of the acid was cleared on payment of duty and some of it was used captively. Commissioner upheld the denial. Hence the appeal.2. The appellants are not present. The appeal is disposed of on the basis of submissions on record.3. For the later period, the appellants have placed on record the judgment passed by the same Commissioner (Appeals) for the later period in which he holds as under :- "In the appellants case, Hydrochloric Acid (HCL) as by-product disclosed not only in the classification list but also in the declaration filed under Rule 57G but specifically not mentioned under the Column "Final Product" of declar...

Audco India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 55.02 lakhs and penalty totalling Rs. 55.52 lakhs.2. The assessee utilise various inputs in the manufacture of industrial valves. The amount represents modvat credit on some quantities of these inputs the value of which was deemed by the applicant as expenditure on the ground of depreciation and obsolescence. In his order, the Commissioner has held that since the fact that the value of these goods was claimed as expenditure in the assessee's balance sheet and other records establishes that the inputs were not utilised as required by law towards manufacture of finished goods and demanded the credit that was taken of the duty paid on them and imposed penalties.3. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the value of these inputs have been claimed as expenditure in accordance with the Accounting Standards 2 of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India which provides with regard to inventories "...

Sai Shant Die Casting Industries Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT490Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay application, it appeared that on point of law; the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. Both sides agreeing this was done.2. The appellant purchased aluminium ingots from traders and claimed deemed credit thereupon in terms of an order issued by the Government in terms of Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The credit taken was denied on the observation that such ingots were eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 180/88-C.E. The dispute then travelled to CEGAT. The CEGAT in their order No.CI/1762/WZB/ 2000, dated 12-5-2000 remanded the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner with a direction to verify whether the manufacturer had availed of the benefit of the aforesaid notification. This direction was made in terms of the opinion expressed by the Tribunal in para 23 of the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Machine Builders and Ors. v. C.C.E. [1996 (83)E.L.T.576].4. The Joint Commissioner passed ...

Jindal Strips Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT918Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arise out of two common impugned order and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of C.R. coils etc. Modvat credit has been disallowed on several items claimed to be capital goods. The ground for disallowing capital goods credit is that the items do not fall within the coverage of the explanation to Rule 57Q as capital goods.3. I have heard both sides. My findings on the various items are recorded as under :- (i) Current Transformer ratio : Credit of Rs. 10,450 has been denied on this item which is used for supplying required current to the Rolling Mill Machinery. Since the capacity was not the permitted capacity, I hold that the credit is not available on this item. (ii) Float cum charger : Credit of Rs. 7860 has been denied on this item which is used to charge D.C. Battery to supply D.C. power to D.C. Motors of Rolling Mill. This is eligible capital goods being part of Rolling Mill Ma...

Ankleshwar Metal Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal 4032/02 is taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit. The connected appeal 4031/02 which was not listed to day was also, with the consent of both sides, taken up for disposal. There is no question of stay in this appeal.2. The appellant was operating a rolling mill and in accordance with the provisions of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 made an application on 26.3.1999 for determination of the capacity of the mill. The Commissioner has passed an order determining the capacity at 3205 ton. By its application dated 26.3.1999 the appellant addressed to the Commissioner asking for redetermination of the capacity, on the ground that the changer of two of the parameters which have the bearing to the final capacity. This application seems to have been received by the Commissioner on 26.3.1999 itself. It wrote further letter to the Commissioner on 2.6.1999 in which it stated that it had changed the parameters of ...

Dr. (Mrs.) Poornima M. Deshpande, Nee Dr. Poornima Joshi Vs. the Dean, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR353

S.J. Vazifdar,J. 1. Rule. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioner has challenged Rule III (1) (iii) of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Courses of Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 as arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. The Petitioner has also prayed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider her for admission to the Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma Course at Goa Medical College on merit, independent of the requirement in the said Rule. 3. Rule III (1)(iii) reads as under:- 'III. Eligibility, (1) Eligibility.- Candidates postgraduate degree courses shall: (i)... ... ... ... (ii).. ... ... ... (iii) have resided in the State of Goa for a minimum period of ten years preceding the last date of receipt of application.' 4. The Petitioner is from Hubli, Karnataka. On 21st February, 2000, she married one Dr. Milind Deshpande, a permanent resident of Goa, and since then has been residing in Goa. In March...