Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Badrinarayan Silk Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT437Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue Challenges the order or the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the duty demand of Rs. 63,022/- confirmed against the respondents herein from whose commercial premises 3707 cut pieces of processed man-made fabrics were seized on 19-12-96 as not being covered by the duty paying documents for reason that the respondents were not the manufacturer of the goods in question.2. I have heard the Id. DR. The respondents are absent in spite of notice and hence I perused the records. The respondent's plea that they are traders in processed man-made fabrics and that they were getting grey man-made fabrics processed from independent process house or alternatively make outright purchase of processed fabrics from other wholesale traders, has been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has not been challenged by the Revenue in the appeal before the Tribunal. The Revenue's appeal recognized that the goods in question were manufactured on behalf of the respondents by the job wor...

Konkan Kemistar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC476

1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the classification of synthetic resin adhesive manufactured by the appellant. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of polyvinyl acetate emulsion and synthetic resin adhesive. The department was of the view that each of these products is classifiable in heading 3905 of the Central Excise Tariff and, for purposes of extending the exemption contained in notification 175/86, clearances of both these products was to be added in calculating the slab exemption of Rs. 20 lakhs. The assessee's contention was that synthetic resin adhesive is classifiable in heading 35.06 of the Tariff, while accepting classification of polyvinly acetate emulsion in heading 39.05 of the tariff. Therefore, by application of the proviso under the first paragraph of notification 175/86, slab exemption of Rs. 20 lakhs for clearance fro one item and Rs. 10 lakhs on another item would be available. Adjudicating on the notice issued to the assessee...

Emmes Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1041Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. In pursuance of the Tribunal Order Nos.CI/3816-17/WZB/2001, dated 13-12-2001 [2002 (145) E.L.T. 234 (Tribunal)], the appellants were required to produce a copy of re-constructed bill of entry before the Assistant Commissioner to whom the case was remanded for fresh decision. The present miscellaneous application was filed by the appellants since they did not receive from the customs authorities either any reply or copy of reconstructed bill of entry. The learned J.D.R. has received a reply from the customs authorities indicating that the case is very old and they are not able to trace the original bill of entry to be able to supply a reconstructed bill of entry to the appellants.2. It is the appellants' case that the credit was taken by them on 26th November, 1994 on the basis of triplicate copy of the bill of entry and that they had also shown the triplicate copy to the audit party on 8-4-1995. It is their claim that only subsequently, the triplicate copy has bee...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Voltas Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT52Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Voltas Ltd., Mumbai imported a consignment of copper "U" tubes with brazing rings attached to each end, claiming classification of the goods in heading 7412.20 as tube and pipe fitting as copper. The Custom House was of the view that the goods were nothing other than a part of air conditioner to be manufactured by the importer and therefore proposed classification in heading 8415.90, as parts of air conditioners. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the classification in heading 8415.90. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee that the goods were excluded from classification in chapter 84 by virtue of note 2 of Section XV which excluded parts of general use and were tube and pipe fitting of base metal, and accepted the classification claimed by the importer. Hence this appeal by the department.2. The departmental representative contends that in the light of the fact that the goods correspond specifically to the description of a...

C.J. Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT976Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,35,814/- (CJ Texturisers Pvt. Ltd.). Rs. 1,30,952/- (Crimson Syntex Pvt. Ltd.) and penalties of Rs. 15,000/- in each case arise out of two separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) involving identical issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Duty demand has been confirmed by holding that clearances made from the beginning of the year by availment of the benefit of SSI Notification 1/93 shall be counted towards first clearance irrespective of the fact that the goods had been cleared at full rate of duty. We note that this issue has been the subject-matter of the orders of the Tribunal in batches of cases and that there are different views prevalent upon this subject. Therefore we are of the view that a prima facie case for waiver has been made out by both the applicants and hence dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals....

Cadila Hospital Products Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1039Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against that part of the Commissioner's order confirming the demand for duty on scrap manufactured and cleared by the appellant without payment of duty. The scrap arose in the manufacture of needles.2. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant, that the benefit of the exemption contained in Entry 24 of the Schedule to Notification 53/88, has to be accepted. This entry totally exempts from duty waste bearing scrap of plastic classifiable in Heading 39.15 of the Tariff, if they arise from goods on which excise duty or additional duty of customs has been paid. The Commissioner himself records in Paragraph 4 of the order that the basis for the demand was that Modvat credit had been availed of the duty paid on the plastic from which the waste arose which is utilised in the manufacture of needles. The condition subject to which the exemption was available is therefore shown to have been satisfied. Therefore, duty was not demandable on this score and penalty not imposa...

Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Acce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC722Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Modvat credit of Rs. 27,702/- has been disallowed on (1) cement, (2) Acquat, Formulation, Biosite (Chemical items) and (3) H.S.S. Hand tap on the ground that these are not capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5000/- has been imposed. The period of dispute is May & June, 1996.2. I have heard Shri V.K. Jain, ld. C.A. for the appellants and Shri Uma Shankar, SDR for the Revenue and record my findings herein below: Cement is used in civil construction work for laying foundation for setting up machines. In the assessees' own case (Order No. C.II/1384-90/WZB/2003 dated 13.6.2003) capital goods credit has been extended to cement following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. upholding the Tribunal's decision in which it was held that the definition of capital goods in Rule 57Q is very wide. The contention of the ld. SDR that building material used as raw matarial for construction of plant ca...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Steelco Gujarat Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai

The mistake alleged in the Department's application referring to Steelco Gujarat Ltd., the assessee, is that the Tribunal, in coming to its conclusion that no duty was payable on 81 coils of imported steel stated to have been removed from the bonded warehouse of the assessee without payment of duty, has not considered the joint verification carried out by the investigating officers and the assessee. The Tribunal's order [reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 747 (Tribunal)] does not record the argument advanced by either side in this regard.However, we have seen a copy of this report. It does not seem to justify the Commissioner's conclusion demanding duty of Rs. 1.34 crores. Apart from that whether the joint report is right or wrong, as is now sought to be claimed by the departmental representative, or whether it was considered or not, it does not appear to be relevant in determining that an error apparent on the face of the record has taken place. As has been explained, such an error which ...

Lime Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants M/s. Lime Chemicals Ltd. are manufacturers of Calcium Carbonate falling under Chapters 28 and 38. They are disputing the correctness of order No. CPA/04/M-VII/2002-03 dated 13/5/2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Mumbai-VII, whereby the demand confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner was upheld.However the penalty was reduced from Rs. 60,000/- to 50,000/-. The dispute relates to 10 consignments of Calcium Carbonate cleared by the appellants to different customers under various invoices on payment of appropriate duty of excise. However, since the product did not conform to quality standards and parameters, each of the said consignments was rejected by the respective customers and was returned back to the appellants as non-marketable. The goods were returned under the cover of very same invoice under which the goods were originally cleared to the various consignees.2. On receipt of the rejected goods for re-processing/rectification, th...

S.C. Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT461Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Application by S.C. Brothers is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 2.86 lakhs approx. and equivalent penalty. Application by K.D. Sanghvi, its partner is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The demand for duty and the penalty are consequent on the finding that the applicant did not pay duty on ferrous scrap which arose in the factory in the manufacture of parts of machinery. The contentions of the Counsel for the applicant are that there is insufficient basis for the quantification of scrap and that part of the scrap which was sent out was received back in the form of castings. As to the latter point, he accepts that there is no evidence of return of castings. He contends that the "security gate pass" which the applicant issued to its job workers who were to make casting did not contain any details whatsoever. He is however unable to produce copy of such a gate pass.3. On the face of it, we find it difficult to believe that these gate passes did not contain any de...