Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Orient Nitrate (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC199Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 5,63,938/- confirmed on Ammonium Nitrate (obtained by purifying Calcium Ammonium Nitrate) manufactured and cleared in 1996-97 and 1997-98, and a result of classifying the product under CETA sub-heading 3102.00 and penalty of equal amount, Ld. Counsel Shri R. Nambirajan contents that the demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice dt. 20.5.99 has been issued beyond the period of six months from the relevant date and the extended period of limitation is not attracted for two reason: [1] The applicants filed classification declarations under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules 1944, during the relevant period in which they had clearly stated that they were clearing crystalline ammonium nitrate at nil rate of duty as it does not attract Central Excise Duty, being manufactured from Melt/Lump/Prilled and Impure Ammonium Nitrate, and therefore, there was full disclosure regarding the clearance of the item i...

Mahavir Medical Research Centre Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(112)LC242(Bombay)

ORDER1. Heard Learned Counsel for the rival parties2. Perused petition and reply.3. This petition is directed against the order dated 15.11.2002 passed by the CEGAT (Tribunal, directing pre-deposit in the sum of Rs. 33,530 by 30.11.2002. Subject to pre-deposit being made, penalty was ordered to be waived by the Tribunal during pendency of the appeal.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, before CEGAT while seeking exemption from predeposit, had specifically placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of P.D. Hinduja National Hospital v. CCE, Mumbai , in which Tribunal had dispensed with necessity of predeposit as required under Section 129-E of the Customs Act in view of the fact that the imported goods were in control of Customs Department. The Tribunal in the instant case rejected the prayer to dispense with pre-deposit, made by the petitioners without dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Tribunal delivered in the ...

Rajpurohit Gmp India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT431Tri(Mum.)bai

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 metallized lacquered polyester films.2. It was contended by the appellant-assessees 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 noti...

South Asia Tyres Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT382Tri(Mum.)bai

1. South Asia Tyres Limited, Waluj, is engaged in the manufacture of tyres for Ceat. Among the material required for manufacture of tyres is rubberised tyre cord. This is obtained by coating with rubber the bare tyre cord fabrics on which is generally made out of nylon or rayon.2. The assessee purchased the bare tyre cord fabrics from its manufacturer and sent it to the factory of Ceat, Bhandup under Rule 57F(3) for conversion into dip or rubberised tyre cord. After this was done it utilised the dipped tyre cord rubber fabrics which it received in the manufacture of tyres. The notice issued to it noted that while goods manufactured in a factory and captively consumed therein were exempted from payment of excise duty by notification 67/95 that exemption did not extended to the additional duty of excise leviable under the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special importance) Act, 1957. Therefore, it proposed to recover such duty from the appellant for the fabrics that it received duri...

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common question which we are required to consider in these appeals by Nestle India Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Ltd. is whether the activities undertaken by each of these companies on the goods imported by them amounted to manufacture within the meaning of note 3 to Chapter 18, note 3 to Chapter 19 and note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Nestle India Ltd. imported chocolates. As required by the Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it affixed on the retail packs of chocolates the name and address of the importer, maximum retail price, net weight, month and year of manufacture, whether vegetarian or not, and month of importation.3. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. imported, among other goods, two products, Topomac and Eprex. Both are life saving medicaments. The medicaments when shipped by the supplier abroad were packs intended for retail sale. Several such packs were placed in bul...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Bil Metal Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None is present for the Respondent. Heard Shri Uma Shankar, learned S.D.R. for the Departments. This is an appeal filed by the Department.In the grounds of appeal the applicant Commissioner has stated as follows:- "In the instant case, the assessee had executed the B-11 bond dtd. 7.8.91 for the sum of Rs. 3 lacs backed by a cash security of Rs. 30,000/-, for the release of the seized tempo, which indulged in carrying contraband excisable goods. The Assistant Commissioner had released the said tempo against the said B-11 bond, while getting the release of the said tempo provisionally, the assessee agreed to fulfil the terms/conditions of the said bond. Therefore, in view of the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that it was not correct to appropriate the refund due to the assessee; besides the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had specifically held that if the assessee had executed B-11 bond for the provisional release of seized tempo, they are estopped there...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Inarco Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT92Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of floor tiles manufactured by Inarco Ltd., the respondent to this appeal.2. In the classification list that it has filed effective from 10^th March 1999, the assessee classified the tiles in heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. This heading is for articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica and similar material not elsewhere specified or included. The notice issued to it proposes to classify the goods in heading 3918.10, which covers floor covering of plastics whether or not self adhesive, on the ground that the report of the test of these goods indicated them to contain polyvinyl chloride, resin, plaster etc. etc.and on further ground that the goods were generally known as plastic tiles in the market. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the classification of the goods in this heading. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals), accepting the contention that the composition of the tiles...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Swapnil G. Shah

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue has come up in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, who directed confiscation of various consumer goods such as cordless telephone, cosmetics, cooking range, domestic appliances, etc., seized on 04/05/1995 from the premises of the respondent herein with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondent.3. I find that that none of the goods in question are notified goods.Further I also find that the respondent produced bills for purchase of many of the items which were seized, such bills were verified and found to be genuine. However, in respect of bills certified by one Shri D.S.Gole it is the case of the department that Shri Gole was non-existent as stated by the Chief Executive of the Associated Electrical Agencies.4. Learned counsel for the respondent brings to my notice that Shri Gole was an employee not of Associated Ele...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Standard Industries Limited and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Both appeals involve common issue and are hence heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. M/s. Standard Industries Limited is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, man-made fabrics, embroidered fabrics, etc., while M/s.Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Company Limited is the manufacturer of polyester staple fibre yarn of different blends. Both the respondents have opted for modvat facility for inputs to be used in the manufacture of their final products. During the manufacture thereof soft waste was generated and the same was cleared at nil rate of duty.Show cause notices were issued for recovery of wrongly availed modvat credit which notices were adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the demand raised on waste in the show cause notices and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on M/s. Standard Industries Limited. No penalty was imposed upon M/s. Khatau Makanji Spinning and Weaving Company Limited. The assessees preferred appeals...

Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT512Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of the consignments of fertilizer that the appellant imported in June 1990 at Mumbai. In the bills of entry that were filed for their clearance, it claimed their classification in heading 3105.90 of the Customs Tariff. The goods were provisionally assessed to duty pending their correct classification. Based upon the result of test of a sample of the goods by the Deputy Chief Chemist of the Department, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs finalized the assessment by classifying the goods in subheading 60 of heading 31.02. This classification has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.2. It was contended before us that since the classification claimed by the importer was earlier determined by an adjudication order of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, it was not open to the department to question it. He further contends that the goods had earlier been classified in heading 3105.90 by an ad...