Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments

Hitkari Fibres Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A very short point is involved in the present appeal. The issue is as to whether the cost of the moulds is required to be added in the assessable value of the appellant's final products or not.2. Shri M.V. Ravindran, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that there is no quarrel about the above proposition on law and agrees that the matter is now finally settled that the cost of the moulds is required to be added in the final products of assessable value. He further submits that as per the facts on records, the appellants originally entered into an agreement with M/s. Telco Ltd. for supply of the moulded carpets for which Telco was to supply them the moulds at free of cost. The cost of the moulds was negotiated at Rs. 29,15,000/- out of which 50% amount was amortized over the supply of specified quantity of carpets and the balance 50% was to be paid by them at different stages. It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate that these moulds were ultimately not supplied by M/s...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Castrol India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, revenue has filed the present appeal.2. As per the facts on records the respondent's factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 27 to 29/01/98, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result of verifications of inputs stock, the same was found to be short than the recorded balance m the statutory records. The respondent's Works Accountant Shri Manoj Kotian, in his on the spot statement stated that such differences could be on account of system error, clerical error and documentation error and the same would be reconciled by them subsequently. He also deposed that such differences were also noticed by them during internal stock verification process done on 31/12/97, but they could not reconcile the same as they were preoccupied with the financial closing. The repondents deposited an amount of Rs. 64,43,269/- 'under protest' towards the differences noticed in physical stock an...

Sintex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that by order dated 28.3.1994, the Collector of Central Excise confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 64.37 lakhs against the appellants herein in respect of polyethylene moulding powder for the period from December 1987 to February 1988, holding that the item falls for classification under chapter heading 38.01 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, by applying Note 6 to Chapter 39 as amended vide Finance Bill of 1988. The appellants preferred appeal No. E/1533/94-C against the Collector's order and the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.6.1996, followed the earlier decision in Bright Brothers Ltd. 1996 (64) ECR 240 and held that the amendment to Note 6 to Chapter 39 was only clarificatory. On the question of demand quantification, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector of Central Excise to consider availability of modvat credit and to re-determine assessable value in the light of its larger bench decision in Dai Ichi Karkaria 1996...

Saina Industries and Sunil Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC253

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 44,63,649.00, imposed an equal amount of penalty under 571 173Q, demanded Under Section 571 (5) of Central Excise Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 on one of the partners Under Section 209 A. Hence the appeals.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant firm manufactures excisable goods falling under chapter heading 83 of the CETA. The Central Excise officers who visited the appellant's factory found that he was availing of modvat credit on HR/CR coils (hereafter referred to as "coils").However it was revealed that only HR/CR sheets were received by the appellants and not the coils covered under central excise invoices.Statements of various persons concerned were recorded. In the Show-Cause Notice it was alleged that the credit of duty paid on the coils was wrongly taken as such coils were never received in th...

Overseas Polymers Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC57

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit, we found that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit of anti-dumping duty of Rs. 53,66,640 confirmed against M/s. Overseas Polymers Ltd. and Rs. 9,88,222 imposed against M/s. Jagriti Plasters Ltd. 2. The issue in dispute is whether anti-dumping duty at the enhanced rate as per Notification No. 109/2000 is leviable on goods, viz normal butanol and 2-ethyl hexanol imported prior to the issue of notification 109/2000 and warehoused prior to the issue of the notification. We find that the same issue has been considered by the bench in the case of CC, Chennai v. Suja Rubber Industries, 2002 (49) RLT 326 wherein it has been held that the rate of anti-dumping duty in force on the date of importation is applicable in terms of Section 9 A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and in the present case ther...

Vamanrao Sawalaram Bhosale and ors. Vs. Vithal Tukaram Kadam and Chand ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR448; 2006(1)MhLj867

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. While admitting this Second Appeal by order 2 dated 3-2-1997 this Court has framed the following substantial question of law for decision:'Whether the Deed dated 21-4-1953 (Exhibit 62) is a Deed of Mortgage by way of conditional sale or a sale with condition of re-purchase?'2. Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 1986 came to be filed by the present respondents for redemption of the mortgaged land viz. Gat No. 817 admeasuring 14 gunthas, Gat No. 837 admeasuring 16 gunthas, Gat No. 830 admeasuring 19 gunthas, Gat No. 874 admeasuring 27 gunthas, of village Jawle, Taluka Khandala in Satara District. It was claimed that Tukaram Bala Kadam, the late father of the plaintiffs had executed the deed of mortgage by conditional sale on 21-4-1953 in favour of Shri Madhavrao Savlaram Bhosale for consideration of Rs. 700/-and it was agreed between the parties that on repayment of the said amount within ten years from the date of the deed, the purchaser would reconvey the suit land to t...

Zilla Parishad Through Its Chief Executive Officer and the Parishad Ed ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR453

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. While admitting the Second Appeal on 16-12-1996, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether it was open for the Civil Court to grant reinstatement to the plaintiff - respondent in view of Section 24 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947;(b) Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant reinstatement on sympathetic consideration; and(c) Whether the Suit instituted by the plaintiff was hit by limitation as set out in Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (the 'Z.P. Act' for short).2. The brief facts leading to this Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff was issued the show cause notice dated 17-2-1987 (Exh. 52) by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Solapur proposing to proceed to take disciplinary action under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad, District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 against the plaintiff (for short 'the D. and A. Rules'). The pla...

The Hindustan Minerals Products Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT425Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the pre condition of deposit of duty amount of Rs. 31,40,086/- and penalty of Rs. 30,82,670/-.2. Shri D.B. Shroff, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellant submits that the said demand has been confirmed by classifying their final products of Coated Calcite under heading 3824.90 as against the appellant's claim of the same being covered under heading 25.05 and attracting nil rate of duty the point of limitation, Ld. Advocate also submits that the Commissioner in the impugned order has principally agreed with them that the appellants are entitled to modvat credit but has not considered the same while calculating the final demand of duty.3. He submits that the modvat credit is taken into account; the net demand of duty against them would amount to Rs. 11.50 lakhs. In any case. he submits that the same would be barred by limitation, inasmuch as the appellants did not file any declaration or classification list with the Central Exci...

Narmada Chematur Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner (A) who in the impugned order upheld denial of MODVAT credit of Rs. 9,48,397.54 and imposed an equal amount of penalty. Briefly the facts are as follows: 2. The appellant availed MODVAT credit on inputs such as Benzene, Toluene, H.C.I. Caustic Soda, Nitric Acid L.D.O. etc. on the basis of quantities shown in the Central Excise invoices under which they were received in his factory even though it was evident that the full quantity shown in the invoices was not received in the factory. The appellant in his statutory records showed the quantity as indicated in the invoices though in the private records he indicated the correct quantity received Further it appears the appellant was claiming compensation of amounts on the short received goods from the suppliers of the inputs. The modvat credit taken on the short received goods was worked out to be Rs. 9,48,379.54. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand for...

Cce Vs. Noble Drug Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC777

1. The respondents herein are selling their products through distributors appointed on area basis and also through stockiest. The price charged to the distributors were 6% less than the price charged to stockiest. Show cause notice were issued demanding duty on the differential value on the ground that distributors and stockiest belong to the same class of buyer. Proceedings were dropped by the Asst.Collector holding that there was no reason for treating distributors and stockiest as belonging to same class of buyers that terms and conditions of sale to distributors and to stockiest are based on different parameters, the price which is the commercial price must be regarded as wholesale cash price for the purpose of Section 4 and that 6% discount is given to the distributors uniformly to meet their expenses compared to stockiest. The lower appellate authority upheld the Asst. Collector's Order and rejected the appeal of the Revenue; hence there appeals before the Tribunal.2. We have he...