Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mpi Ethical Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1061Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of medicament and availed of the exemption contained in notification 245/87. The notification provides for partial exemption from duty after allowing discount of 15% of the retail price of the medicine determined by the Drug Price Control Order. Exemption in the notification provides that in calculating the value of the medicine "the amount of excise duty payable if any" shall be deducted before allowing the discount from retail price. The assessee deducted from the retail price not only the basic excise duty but the special excise duty payable thereon. This was objected to by issue of notice. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's claim and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order. Hence this appeal by the Commissioner.2. The ground in the appeal is that the term "excise duty" referred to in the Explanation refers only duty payable under the Centr...

Arunoday Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT790Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. A consignment of such yarn which it sent out to its supplier on payment of duty was returned as rejected on account of its lack of quality. The goods on such rejection were received by the appellant on 24-12-94. The appellant after refinishing the goods exported them and filed a claim for refund of duty that it had initially paid. The claim was received in the office of the Asstt. Commissioner on 26-6-95, was found to be incomplete and returned to the appellant for resubmission of the required document. It was resubmitted on 25-8-95.2. The notice issued to the appellant proposed to reject the claim on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of six months computed from the duty of return of the goods. The Asstt. Commissioner whose order has been confirmed on appeal held that the claim was in fact was submitted on 25-8-95 and hence barred by limitation.3. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant that it is the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Godfrey Philips (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein are engaged in manufacture of cigarettes. They also make embossed paper backed aluminium foils out of duty paid paper backed aluminium foils falling under chapter sub heading 7607.60 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The aluminium foils are cut to shape for further use in the factory for packing of cigarettes manufactured by them. The department was of the view that the process of embossing and cutting to shape amounts to manufacture, resulting in the emergence of new products falling under CETA, 1985 sub heading 7607.20/6707.30 chargeable to duty. Hence, eight show cause notices as detailed below were issued to the respondents:- 2. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order No. K-III/17 to 27/97 dated 04/07/97 confirmed the duty demands holding that the product was a result a manufacture. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order holding that no new products emerge as a result of embossing and cutting to...

Phils Heavy Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT908Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 32,94,300/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. The duty demand has been confirmed as a result of addition of charges for installation/fabrication of storage vessel for petroleum products (herein after called Bullets) shown in the purchase orders of BPCL and recovered by the applicants herein during the period from April 1997 to May, 1999 at the rate of 12,10,000/- per bullet.2. On hearing both sides, we find prima facie force in the contention of the applicants that the item in dispute which was removed in 3 segments that is in CKD condition as the same could not be delivered/transported in one piece from the applicants' factory due to huge size thereof are not excisable goods, as after erection on civil foundation at the customers' site, the same become immovable property.In the present case site fabrication includes - Assembly of Bullet Sections, Welding, Stres...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cadila Veterinary Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The common question for consideration in these two appeals by the Commissioner is whether the incidence of the duty paid in excess by Cadila Veterinary Co., the respondent to these appeals, which is claimed as refund has not been passed on as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act.2. The claims for refund were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that it has not been shown that the incidence of duty has been passed on. The claimant appealed this order and made various submissions before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) asked for a report to be furnished by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on the submissions that the assessee made, and acting on the report that he furnished, has held that the incidence of duty has not been passed on.3. In paragraph 6 of his common order, the Commissioner (Appeals) says that the report of the Deputy Commissioner makes it "crystal clear" that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. The D...

Hoganas India Ltd. and R.V. Naik Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty of Rs. 32.08 lakhs approx has been demanded from the assessee, penalty of the same amount imposed on it and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on R.v. Naik, its employee, on the ground that the atomized iron powder that it manufactured and sold to Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd (MSPL for short) was under valued. The assessee was manufacturing the powder in a plant originally belonged to MSPL which it purchased in 1992. The agreement dated 22.9.1995 between the applicant and MSPL provided in effect that the price at which it sold the goods to MSPL would be 5% less than the price at which it sold to other persons.2. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that this reduction in price is motivated by the fact that MSPL is its largest buyer. It, on an average, is buying 32% metallurgical powder that it manufactured every year.3. On merits, the issues are debatable. The agreement between the parties was so worded that the price at which the goods sold to MSPL would be lower than ...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC239

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the denial by the Asst. Commissioner of the credit of the appellant on 20.7.94 of the duty shown to have been paid on the original copy of the invoice issued on 18.5.94.2. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) makes sorry reading. It says that since credit can be taken on the original copy of the invoice only when the duplicate is lost subject to an application made to the Asst.Commissioner and since the Asst. Commissioner has turned down the assessee's application it follows that he was not satisfied with the assessee's claim. Therefore he does not find "reasonable ground" to interfere. It was expected of the Commissioner (Appeals) that he apply his mind on the submissions made before him and pass a reasoned order.In fact, the Asst. Collector in his order has denied the credit not because he was not satisfied that the duplicate has been lost but because the amendment to Rule 57G by insertion of Rule 2...

Jag Prakash Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC895

1. Appeals taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit, with consent of the departmental representative. The appellants are absent and unrepresented despite notice.2. The appeals are against imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Rs. 50,000/- on Riddhi Siddhi Processors (Appeal E/1114) and penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on Jag Prakash Synthetics (Appeal E/1112) and Atul G. Gandhi (Appeal E/1113) respectively under Rule 209A.Penalties have been imposed on the finding that Riddhi Siddhi Processors evaded duty payable on goods processed by it. The other two persons abetted the evasion. Atul Gandhi was at the relevant time partner in Riddhi Siddhi Processors and proprietor of Jag Prakash Synthetics.3. The only common contention in these appeals is that, duty having been paid prior to issue of notice, penalty is not imposable. The decision of the single member of the Tribunal in Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 437 (T) = 2001 (46) RLT 169 and other dec...

Sanjoo Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Penalty totalling Rs. 3.67 lacs approx required to be deposited by the applicant, a processor textile fabrics. The penalty has been imposed for late payment of duty beyond the prescribed period payable in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZQ.2. Counsel for the applicant relies upon the ratio of the judgment of the learned single judge of the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers v.Union of India 2002 (52) ELT 636. He contends that the duty which was paid late was paid in terms of Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998, and the high court has struck down these rules being ultra vires of Section 3A of the Act, imposition of penalty is not sustainable.3. The department representative cites the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved Prakash 1999 (178) ITR 833 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Taylor Instrument Co.(India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 99 Taxman 155 in order to say that since...

Cc (Ep) Vs. the Design Point

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(110)LC300Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the impugned goods to be printed books for the purpose of Sr. No. 457 in the DEPB Schedule.2. Shri A. Shukla, learned SDR appearing for Revenue states that the impugned goods merely consist of designs pasted on different pages and do not have any relative texts nor are they bound. It is his submission that a mere collection of pages cannot be considered to be a printed book. He also refers to the grounds of appeal and reiterates the same.Further, he states that the ISBN No. is given on request of a publisher on payment of prescribed fees and mere allocation of an ISBN No. is not sufficient to hold that the impugned goods are printed books.3. Shri K.M. Mondal, learned consultant for the respondents explains that what are pasted on the pages are not photographs but are printed pictures obtained through scanning of textile prints to a computer and then reproduced by printing on high quality pape...