Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Atmet Industries and Bhadresh B. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 5,72,393/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed against the applicant firm and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon its partner, arise out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has dismissed the appeals before him on the ground of non-compliance by the applicants with his directions for pre-deposit of the entire duty and penalty components.2. The submission of the applicants before us is that they had, in addition to the plea that no case can be made out against them on merits, raised a plea of financial hardship which was not considered by the lower appellate authority, either initially at the time of directing the pre-deposit or subsequently while considering their application for modification. He submits that the balance sheets were placed before the lower appellate authority showing the net loss of the firm and also showing that they had very low sales income. But in spit of this submission, the entire duty an...

Cce Vs. Neco Casting Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC604Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri S.S. Bhagat, Ld. S.D.R. appeared on behalf of the Revenue and he contended that the modvat credit is not admissible to the respondent in view of the fact that the refractory bricks were not covered under the exclusion clause of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the relevant time. He also submitted that though subsequently refractory bricks were specifically covered within specific goods, the respondents have claimed it as input and have filed no declaration with regard to the claiming of the credit. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise wherein the Tribunal in para 7 has noted that the submission of the learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd., wherein he clearly admitted the refractory bricks not eligible for modvat credit.Therefore, his submission is that the respondents are not eligible for modvat credit on refractory bricks claimed a...

Tigrania Metal and Steel Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Tigrania Metal & Steel Industries are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985. They were clearing their goods at nil rate of duty by availing exemption under the Notification 204/83 and 208/83 both dated 01/08/1983. The department alleged contravention of the provisions of Notification 208/83 on the ground that they had used non duty paid ship breaking scrap in the manufacture of their final products and issued a show cause notice dated 29/07/1988 covering the period from 01/08/1983 to 31/03/1986 proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 69, 73, 171.81 by denying the benefit of the notification. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, confirmed the demand. In appeal, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the benefit of the notification but remanded the case to the adjudicating authority on the aspect of time barred nature of the demand. The adjudicating authority passed the present impugned order holding ...

Shri Dattatraya Mahadev Deshmukh Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR343; [2004(102)FLR101]; 2004(2)MhLj478

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In a matter which arose out of a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court held by a Part-I award dated 22nd September 1998 that the disciplinary enquiry which was conducted by the employer was fair and proper. The Labour Court held that the findings which had been arrived at in the disciplinary proceedings were not perverse. Thereafter, by a Part-II award dated 14 February 2002, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal passed against the workman on the ground that the penalty was disproportionate. Since in the meantime the workman had attained the age of superannuation on 3rd April 1999, the Labour Court directed the employer to pay 50% of the backwages to the workman from 19th September 1980 until 3rd April 1999.3. Both the employer as well as the workman have filed Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 o...

Baron International Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(163)ELT150(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Lambey waives service on behalf of Respondents. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 20th September, 2002 passed by the CEGAT, Mumbai refusing to accept modification of its earlier order dated 22nd April, 2002 directing deposit in the sum of Rs. 85 lakhs towards duty demanded from the Petitioner in the sum of Rs. 2.19 crores with penalty of Rs. one crore, finding that no prima facie case on merits warranting total waiver of duty pending consideration of the appeal has been made out by the Petitioner.3. At this juncture, it must be mentioned that the original order of the CEGAT dated 22nd April, 2002 refusing to waive pre-deposit in toto and directing deposit of Rs. 85 lakhs is not a subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Thus order dated 22nd April, 2002 has become final and conclusive between the parties. What is challenged in this petition is a subsequent order dated 20th Se...

Bharat Spring (Pvt.) Ltd. and Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants sent inputs as such or partially processed to job workers under Rule 57F(6) on returnable challans. While sending the goods they were reversing credit amounting to 10% of the value of such inputs and on return they were re-taking the reversed credits. " The said inadmissible amount of Rs. 1,20,624/- is not available to the said assessee because, i) the said amount of Rs.1,20,624/- is not a specified duty under Rule 57AB ibid and, ii) the challans or any other documents under which the said goods have been sent to/received back are not specified duty paying documents under Rule 57AE ibid: The said assessee have availed the above said credit and submitted the extract of such credit account under the heading namely "Entry book of duty credit" giving (hereby an erroneous impression to the scrutinizing authority that the credit so availed are only in respect of duties specified under Rule 57AB ibid., but on inspection of the documents submitted by (hem on demand, it was found...

Shri Ram S.S.K. Ltd. and Mahatma Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver for pre-deposit of duty (details of which are found in Annexure A to this order) arise out of different adjudication orders.2. The brief facts are that the applicants herein are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. An incentive scheme was introduced to provide benefit to the sugar factories and for expansion projects. Sugar factories were permitted to avail certain quota of sugar to clear on payment of central excise duty at levy but sell them in the open market as free sale sugar. The differential amount was used by the sugar factories for payment of loans etc. The applicants having recovered the difference between the levy and free sale rate as incentive, show cause notices proposing recovery of the said amounts as representing duties of central excise collected but not paid were issued under the provisions of Section 11D read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The demands were confirmed; hence the applications alongwith the appeals before the...

Ashok Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC160Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The benefit of deemed credit in terms of Notification No. 7/2001 CE dated 1.3.2001 has been denied to the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of processed pile fabrics from unprocessed pile fabrics made out of duty paid viscose yarn purchased by them and captively consumed in the manufacture of their final products viz. the processed pile fabrics on two grounds:- (1) Unprocessed pile fabrics is not a specified input under the specific Notification andMangal Textile Mills (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad [2003 (54) RLT 282], the Tribunal has extended the benefit of deemed credit under Notification No.29/96-CE on grey fabrics (which benefit had been denied by the authorities below for the reason that such item was not included as an input in the Notification) holding that specified inputs have gone into manufacture of grey fabrics. Both notifications are identically worded.The contention of the ld. SDR that the scope of Notification No. 7/2001 is narrower than that of...

Shree T.K. Warana Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri M.H. Patil, learned advocate appearing for the appellants states that the dispute in this case relates to the content of non-conventional pulp in the paper made by the appellants for the purpose of obtaining duty concession. He states that the appellants have been using adequate amount of baggase, a non-conventional material, in the production of paper to entitle themselves for the duty concession. He also draws our attention to the Board's Circular No.5/64 which recognizes difficulty in determining the percentage of non-conventional raw-material by chemical and microscopic test and hence it prescribes physical supervision and accounting checks. He further refers to chemical test report dated 15.5.1992 which clarifies that it is not possible to determine the exact percentage of baggase by laboratory test and that it should be ascertained by the executive checks. It is Shri Patil's submission that the impugned order has been passed based on a subsequent test carried out in 1996...

Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT342Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at the stay stage itself. As such, we waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and proceeded to hear the main appeal.2. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned advocate for the appellants states that the issue in the present case is whether a marketable plastic bottle comes into existence during the manufacture of an intravenous infusion, known as Haemaccel, falling under Chapter 30, which are manufactured in a continuous process with the help of a 'form, fill and seal machine.' He further submits as follows:- i) The form, fill and seal machine is manufactured by a company known as Rommelag. It can be seen from the Description and Working Principle of "Bottlepack" Plant by Rommelag (Exhibit "A1" Page 34) and from what has been set out in paragraph 2 of the appeal, that at no stage does a marketable plastic bottle comes into existence. The medicine is in fact filled in the plastic pouch when the plastic is ...