Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

General Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 10,84,827/- and penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs demanded from and imposed on the importer on the ground that the value of electrolytic capacitors that it imported was under declared. In his order, the Commissioner finds that the value declared of Rs. 77.17 lakhs approximately was far too low and that the value ought to be about Rs. 30 lakhs. He has declined to accept the contention of the importer that the capacitors were stock lot and applied the value of similar models of capacitors imported.2. The contention before us of the applicant is that the goods are of "stock lot". When asked to explain this term with regard to capacitors, counsel for the applicant says that they are either near the expiry date; or the oil in them has drained away.3. At the last hearing, we found the contention extremely difficult to accept. The capacitors are used for the capacitance, which is defined as the ratio of charge of one of the conductors of the ca...

Rajpurohit Gmp India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This group of appeals deals with question as to whether slitting and cutting amount to manufacture in respect of steel sheets, plastic laminating sheets and metalised lacquered polyester films.2. It was contended by the appellant assesses before the lower authorities that the above activity will not amount to manufacture. But the adjudicating authority did not agree with the same. We shall take up the issue of steel sheets which was slit and whether such a process would amount to manufacture or not.3. In this group of cases, a show cause notice dated 29.1.2000 was issued by the office of the Directorate General of Anti Evasion, Mumbai, calling upon the appellants in Appeals E/2550 and 2551/01 to pay duty of Rs. 42,89,48,256/- under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The notice also proposed to impose penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Act. The notice also proposed to levy interest and confiscate land, building etc. In the notice,...

Sri Venkateswara Cans Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by Sri Venkateswara Cans Pvt. Ltd. is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 12.54 lakhs approximately and equal amount of penalty. The application by Mukesh D. Shah, director, is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on him.2. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of lipsticks to Lissome Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. who markets. We are concerned in this appeal with determination of the value of lipstick that was sold by Lissome Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Each of lipsticks is packed in a cardboard sleeve and such sleeves are formed in carton of which 30 of the sleeves are packed. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the view of the Assistant Commissioner that the provisions of Section 4(A) would apply to these goods and their value should be based on retail price. The assessing officer found that the sleeve did not have upon it, as was required by the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977, the retail price.3. The contention of the...

Ahmedabad Advance Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing of Cotton Yarn and Non Cellulosic Spun Yarn liable for duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. They cleared the yarn for captive consumption after payment of duty at the spindle stage. The officers on a visit to the assessee's premised on 05/12/1994 observed that clearance of such goods were also made to places situated outside the factory gate without discharging proper Central Excise duty leviable thereon. It was also learnt that 100% Cotton Yarn and Non Cellulosic Spun Yarn was sold to various buyers, without following procedures for clearances of excisable goods and without filing any classification list or and accounting the same in the production clearance and other statutory records. After necessary enquiries show cause notice was issued asking the assessee to Show Cause why: "i) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 36,87,634/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Four only) should not be recovered fro...

JaIn Manufactures Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. As far as the appeal No. E/498/02-Mum is concerned, it is the case of the appellants that they received goods worth Rs. 1,57,316/- under the deemed credit scheme under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.08.1997. However, since they returned part of the material to the supplier, on which they reversed the modvat credit, they paid only the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- by cheque as required under the explanation to the notification. The impugned orders require the appellants to pay Rs. 18,878/- which was the deemed credit on the entire invoiced value of Rs. 1,57,316/-. The appellants contend that they have already reversed Rs. 14,184/- by debit in RG23 part II account.2. As far as the appeal No. E/499/02-Mum is concerned, it is the claim of the appellants that they took deemed credit of Rs. 46,322/- on receipt of material against an invoiced price of Rs. 3,86,1048-. They contend that they have returned most of the material to the supplier and have actually reversed...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Globe Auto Agency, Ved Prakash

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT854Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed a combined order on 29.10.1999 disposing of four appeals filed by Globe Auto Agency, Globe Trading Corporation, Ved Prakash Vijan and Chetan Vijan, partners respectively of these firms. One of the appeals registered as appeal 408/00 filed by the Commissioner against this order was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the letter of the Commissioner authorising the Deputy Commissioner of file the appeal was not filed in original but by way of a photocopy. The application 319/03 is for restoration of this appeal.2. The departmental representative agrees that thee was a failure in that the original letter of authorisation was not filed. However, we find that the objection that was raised by the registry is not related to this but related to some other aspect, that verification of the appeal was not done properly. The appellant therefore did not really have any opportunity to remedy the defect in this regard. On examination of the file we find t...

Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co., common appellant in these appeals, was engaged in the manufacture on job work of parts of motor vehicles. It based the value for assessment of these goods on the cost of their manufacture, the cost of converting raw materials to the finished product and the profit. Two notices were issued to it on the ground that the value of the goods ought to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 at 115% of the cost of manufacture of the goods. Two orders of the Deputy Commissioner confirming the proposal in the notice demanding duty and imposing penalty have been confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence these appeals.2. The counsel for the appellant contends that the provisions of Rule 8 will not apply in a situation where the goods are manufactured by the job worker of the material supplied by a person to whom finished goods are returned after manufacture is complete.3. Considering the prov...

Mine Aid Products Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the cement capsules that the appellant manufactured. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has classified the product in sub-heading 2502.90 of the tariff. It is the appellant's contention that the goods should be classified in sub-heading 29 of the same.- Portland cement (including ordinary Portland Cement, Portland Pozzolana Cement and Portland Slag Cement): - - White cement; whether or not artificially coloured and whether or not with rapid hardening properties.3. The question therefore is really whether the product is Portland cement other than white cement whether or not artificially coloured and whether or not with rapid hardening property and falls in residuary heading.4. It is a composition of the product stated to be as follows. In the affidavit, which has been filed by Vipul Gupta, director of the appellant, that the ordinary Portland cement 70%, high alumina cement 15%, non-ferric alum...

Eupharma Labortories Ltd., R.V. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT979Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants were issued a show cause notice for hiring contravened provision of Rule 57A and 57C in as much as they had availed modvat credit on inputs which were used by them in manufacture of final products cleared under 'nil' rate of duty and had not reversed the said credit proportionately which they were required to do so, beside seeking the demand of Rs. 6,28,131.94 on such amount of modvat credit availed, which was not eligible and was required to be recovered under Rule 57I read with the proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they were also asked to show cause why penalties should not be imposed on them under Rule 57I(4) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Why recoveries determined should not be ordered with interest. The notice was also issued to Shri B.R.Shah, Director and Shri R.V. Shah, Chairman and Managing Director and Shri C.A. Shenoy, Chief Execut...

Nicholas Piramal (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the lower authorities by which they were asked to determine and pay duty on 'Sugar Syrup' manufactured and captively consumed during period August 1998 to October 1999. The lower authorities after recording the process of preparation of sugar solution which is as under:- "a) The respondents liquefy 7000 Kgs. Sugar and 2000 Ltrs. Water by providing heat at 100 to 105 C. In the process they get nearly 97 to 100% concentrated liquid of sugar which is high viscose solution. b) This solution is kept at 70 C temperature to avoid crystallization. This 100% concentration is highly unstable physically and will get converted into lumps at room temperature. This hot liquid is then added with 1000 Ltrs. Water at 70 C temperature, concentration of which gets reduced to 97% and temperature is reduced at 65 C. c) The solution is then pumped into other vessel in hot condition. In second vessel, water is added to make syrup having concentration 66.7% and...