Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Colgate Pamolive (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT391Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are a well known manufacturers of Dental Care and Toilet articles and were availing modvat credit on inputs used in relation to manufacture of excisable goods. They in the usual course of business cleared from the factory, on payment of duty, certain finished products to their deposits all over India. At the depots certain goods were found to be defective. Such defective goods were returned to the factory for rectification. Declaration under Rule 173(H) and 173(L) were filed and prescribed procedure followed. However, during the repacking/reprocessing of the defective goods, inputs (fresh wrappers and stiffeners on which modvat credit was availed) were used on such Toilet Soap/Bathing Bars rectified.2. They were issued notice, even though credit availed on such inputs used in the rectification/repackaging of returned goods was reversed.The lower authorities denied the credit of Rs. 96,000/- under Rule 57 I (2) and confirmed the reversal of Rs. 96,000/- as made. They ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suresh Synthetics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides it is fond that Revenue has filed the stay application against the order of Commissioner on the grounds - (a) Notification No. , 2/95, 8/97 & 13/98 is applicable only if goods are cleared to DTA in accordance with provisions of sub-para (a), (b), (d) & (f) of para 9.9 or of Para 9.20 of the Exim policy and not to clearances in DTA made in accordance with Para 9.10 (b). Since that para deals with other supplier in DTA and not ale envisaged para 9.9 (b) hence the appellants were liable to pay full rate of duty. There is no Notification covering clearances under para 9.10 (b). (b) An amount of Rs. 30, 77, 756/- is involved which otherwise will have to be refunded as consequence of the order in appeal. (c) The clearances were made after obtaining the permission of Development Commissioner, Gandhi Dham. (d) The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the case of SIV Industries Ltd. 2000 (37) R.L.T. 583 (SC.). The issue herein is different. The case of Kun...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

(i) Conveyor belts for carrying sand for preparation of and moulds which in turn are used in the manufacture of from castings. (ii) Core setting fixtures for setting the cores in the moulds for preparation of castings. (iii) Raw part fixtures for checking critical dimensions of raw/rough castings.After recording the submissions of the appellants that without these entities and their use castings could be manufactured, on the following findings arrived by the Commissioner (Appeals):- "I find that none of the items can be said to produce, process or bring about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product as their function is either to keep cores, in position or to inspect the castings to see that they have achieved the critical dimension or to convey sand from one place to another. Such equipment have been held to be not used for producing, processing or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product by the Hon'ble CEGAT in the a...

Carbon Everflow Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported 12 consignments of pitch. Of these, eight consignments were cleared for home consumption, and the remaining four transported in bond to a public bonded warehouse appointed at Nasik. In the into bond bills of entry that were filed for these four consignments, the appellant classified the goods in heading 2708.19.The ex-bond bills of entry that were filed for their clearance of the goods from the bonded warehouse at Nasik claimed classification in sub heading 2708.19. The goods were cleared from the bonded warehouse at Nasik on payment of duty applicable to goods of sub heading 10.Subsequently, it filed a claim for refund of the duty that was paid on the ground that the goods were rightly classifiable in sub heading 19 and not in sub heading 10. This claim was rejected by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the claim filed by the appellant in respect of the goods cleared at Bhaindar on the same ground has been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner ...

Jyoti Wires Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the denial of modvat credit on certain invoices issued by dealers. It was alleged that the invoices issued by the dealers were not eligible duty paying documents to avail modvat credit. Since the particulars as required to be mentioned on such invoices, were not mentioned on these invoices.2. The lower authorities after considering the issue of 'rectifiable' mistakes' and 'essential requirements' has granted credit on certain invoices which they considered as rectifiable defects. On certain other invoices credit was denied after arriving at the following findings:- I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants as well as respondents. I find that in respect of Invoice No. 301 dated 9.05.95 involving duty of Rs. 21,310/- the only allegation is that the invoice was not authenticated. The same being rectifiable and rectified by the respondents the modvat credit cannot be denied. Regarding Invoice Nos. 1 dated 27.05.95 and 2 dated 7.06.95 invo...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who held the benefit of the modvat credit, on paper tubes for packing of Polyester Filament Yarn, was available under Notification No. 5/94 (NT).2. After hearing both sides for some time and considering the material on record, it is found (a) that the ground taken by Revenue as follows:- "Further, though paper tube 'input in the case of assessee' falling under chapter 48 has been specified in column (2) of the table, their final product i.e. 'P.FY.' falling under chapter H. No. 5402 is not specified in column (3) of the table, annexed to notification No. 5/94-CE(NT) dated 1.3.94. Therefore, during the disputed period i.e. August, 1994 the assessee is not entitled for modvat credit on 'Paper Tube'.is not factually correct, and cannot be sustained since it is found on a perusal of Notifications it is seen that P.F.Y. is declared final products and paper tubes are declared inputs. It is pertinent to men...

Harish Chemical Engg. Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT448Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We have heard both sides. The appellant is a small-scale unit which having filed a declaration under notification No. 11/88-C.E. (N.T.) had taken exemption from the operation of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order has been passed demanding duty on items which the appellants manufactured subsequently and were not included in the declaration earlier. It is contended by the learned Consultant for the appellants that according to the Board's Circular dated 24-12-1993, once the factory is registered as a small-scale unit, it is not necessary for the unit to get each and every product manufactured by it endorsed in its registration certificate. He also cited the Tribunal decision in the case of Manko Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 375 (Tri.) to the same effect. As such, he contended, since the unit was within the overall limit of the exemption for the small scale sector, duty is not payable in respect of items which wer...

Bombay Processors and Mr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT111Tri(Mum.)bai

1. As per facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Railway Parts and Components namely 2. During the relevant period, a dispute about the correct classification of Liners, was going on between the appellants and their jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. The appellants filed a Classification List No. 3/89-90 dated 18.8.89 under protest classifying the Liners under sub-heading 8607.00. The Assistant Commissioner passed an Order holding that the Liners are non-excisable goods and the processes carried out by the appellants does not amount to manufacture.Subsequently, a Review Application was filed on or about 28.10.90 before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order dated 7.1.92 remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo consideration. The Assistant Commissioner in de novo proceedings passed an Order on 2.2.93 holding that the Liners are classifiable under heading 86.07. The appellants filed an appeal against the above Order which is rep...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. K.K. Nag Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is aggrieved by the credit allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on transformers, by holding the same to be an integral part of plant and machinery and by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commission of Customs, Jaipur India Rayan 1996 (88) ELT 381 on the grounds:- i) The word 'plant' as used in Rule 57Q, Explanation (1)(a) has to be construed and limited to things specified in the rule. ii) Transformer does not fall under the Category of machine, machinery, plant and equipment and is not part of plant, which is used in producing, processing or bringing out any change in any goods. The use is only to regularize electricity supply and it does not take part in producing or processing goods. iii) Transformer received prior to 16.3.1995 and transformer only with cables etc. was not held to be capital goods by Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jam Shri Ranjit Sing Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. vide order No. 1274/96 WRB. Hence this appeal.2. Heard the learned DR a...

Eskay Narrow Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This case was argued on 16-10-2002, 30-1-2003 and then on 13-3-2003.The issue involved is classification of Ultrasonic Lace Sewing Machine.The appellants claim classification under subheading 8452.29 which was accepted by the group Assistant Commissioner vide the impugned order-in-original. However, on Department's appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has changed the classification to the residual Heading No.84.79 in the impugned order-in-appeal. The present appeal is against the said order-in-appeal. We extract below the operative portion of the impugned order-in-appeal : - "The catalogue of M/s. Evergreen Ultrasonic Ltd., Taiwan for Model ECR 053 describes the machine as Ultrasonic Lace Machine and it states that the machine is capable of welding and cutting in a continuous curve line as well as straight line. The machine eliminates the problems associated with needles, threads and bobbins of conventional sewing machine. The machines are having multi functions to cut, weld, seam, sl...