Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Raymond Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT271Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The stay application arose out of the order of Commissioner (A). The Revenue is the applicant.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner allowed claim for refund of duty paid on yarn which is used the production of Shoddy Blankets which were exempted from payment of duty on the ground that the assessee has reversed the proportionate credit involved in input used in the manufacture of exempted final product in compliance with Notification No. 31/2001, dated 1-6-2001. The Commissioner held that since no duty is payable on the yarn in terms of the said Notification as so whatever duty was paid on the yarn is refundable. On the issue of unjust enrichment she relied the Balance Sheet which showed heavy losses and the Chartered Accountant's certificate which to the effect that the final products were sold at loss. She held that the question of passing on the incidence of duty to the buyer did not arise.3. The ld. DR Shri Hitesh Shah argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) reliance on the b...

Plastrulon Processors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT584Tri(Mum.)bai

1. According to the applicants, errors apparent on the face of the record arise from Tribunal's Order Nos. A/114 & 115/WZB/2004/C-I, dated 23-1-2004 [2004 (166) E.L.T. 511 (T)] in not recording any finding on the plea raised that the process undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture and on the plea based on CBEC circular of June, 1988 and on the plea that they are eligible to the benefit of SSI exemption, even if it is held that they are undertaking process of manufacture of excisable commodity which is liable to duty.3. We find that the issue relating to manufacture of seamless C.S. pipe lined to plastic and pipe fittings lined to plastic already stands decided in the assessees' case vide Final Order No. 430/2001-B, dated 28-8-2001 [2002 (139) E.L.T. 148 (T)] in appeal E/872/94-B and the appeal of the assessees against such order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The present appeals are against demand quantification consequent upon classification. Hence the applicants' ...

Oswal Petrochemical Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(118)LC346Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay application, we fond that it was possible to decide the appeal itself and hence proceeded to do so with the consent of both sides after waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapters 27, 28, 29 and 39 of the schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed a classification list No. 1/89-90 for various products which was duly approved by the Assistant Commissioner.The classification was reviewed in respect of certain products except the product in dispute in the present case, viz., carbon black feed stock-dripolene A & B. Show cause notices were issued proposing classification of carbon black feed stock under CET sub-heading 2707.90 instead of 2713.30 as claimed, and proposing recovery of differential duty on the above basis (the appellants had paid duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem Rs. 175/per MT, whereas the department alleged that the pro...

Shi Vs. Hankar Plywood Ind. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT470Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application for modification of stay order No. S/595 to 600/WZB/2004/C-I dated 19-3-2004 is filed by the applicant on the ground that after the stay order is passed by the Tribunal directing the applicant to pre-deposit Rs. 60 lakhs towards duty, the department attached their property on 28-4-2004 worth approximately Rs. 54 lakhs; that due to this attachment order, the factory has come to a grinding halt; that unless the attachment order is lifted, the applicant will not be able to produce any goods and therefore will not be in a position to comply with the order of the Tribunal; the applicant pleaded that the stay order be modified and the applicant's appeal may be taken up for final disposal.2. The learned DR submitted that the Tribunal may modify its order with a condition that the applicant shall dispose off the attached goods, (if the attachment is lifted) and pre-deposit the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs within a prescribed time.4. We observe that the stay order directing the a...

Bansilal Kishorilal Sahu Vs. Akola Mazdoor Sangh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)IILLJ761Bom; 2005(2)MhLj526

1. A compulsory deduction of 5% amount out of the compensation awarded under the modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme is the subject matter of the challenge in the present petition.Some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under :2. Savatram Ramprasad Spinning and Weaving Mills, Akola i.e. the 3rd respondent which was established 100 years back lost its glory and the consequent losses became inevitable. The textile mill became unviable and therefore, the respondent No. 4 National Textile Corporation under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Undertaking Act, 1957 took over the assets of the said 3rd respondent mill. Consequently, the liabilities of the workers was also taken over. After taking over the said textile mill it was not possible for National Textile Corporation to rum the said textile unit without reorganization of the work force. In the 3rd respondent mill, there were around 450 workers. Many of them formed a work force of badli workers and s...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gurukripa Resins Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT468Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This ROM application can be dismissed at the threshold on the solitary ground that it seeks to reargue the case by bringing in material which was not before the Tribunal when the appeal was decided after hearing both sides. The Revenue is well advised to follow the simple maxim that none is permitted to reargue the case. That we have agreed to deal with this application should not be treated as a licence to file applications seeking revision of the Tribunal's decisions. For one thing the Tribunal, or for that matter, any quasi judicial authority has no power to review its own order and for another there are other avenues for the aggrieved parties to seek relief by filing appeals.2. The Tribunal in its order No. A/141/WZB/2004/C-I dated 14.1.2004 has allowed the appeal stating that pumping of water to an overhead tank with the aid of power (motor) does not amount to a process of manufacture with the aid of power. In the specific case, the Tribunal took into consideration the Ministr...

Bespask Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT453Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle pails, engine parts, electric motor pails and during the relevant period they were availing the benefit of SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 9/98 dated 02/06/98 and Notification No. 9/99 dated 28/02/99. The revenue's case against the appellant is that they had wrongly availed the benefit of the exemption in respect of one of their products i.e. machined brackets, inasmuch as the said goods bore the brand name of their buyer. On the other hand, the appellant contend that their buyer M/s. Magneti Marclli Automotive Components (I) Ltd., were the manufacturer of alternators and they were manufacturing machined brackets (part of alternator) using moulds supplied by their customers on which the words "Magnetti Marclli" were engraved. As such, it is their contention that it cannot be said that they have manufactured the goods with the brand name of their customers. They also relied upon the Clause 4 of the Notificatio...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shri Manish Prabhakar Gupta

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No.75/97 dated 14/7/1997 by which the Commissioner has not confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty against Shri Manish Prabhakar Gupta holding that the charge of clandestine removal of goods is not sustainable for want of evidence.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Respondent. Shri A.K. Saxena, Ld. D.R., pointed out that the Appeal is coming up for hearing since May, 2004 and the Respondent has never attended the hearing. He, therefore, requested that the appeal filed by the Revenue may be heard and decided ex-parte. As we find force in his prayer, we take up the appeal for disposal after hearing the Ld. D.R.and perusing the records.3. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s Lalaram Prayagdas Industries, of which Shri Manish Gupta is the proprietor, manufactures 'Gazab' Brand Pan Masala. On the basis of intelligence that Shri Manish Gupta was indulged in manufacturing and removing Pan Masa...

Bloomberg Data Services (i) Pvt. Vs. Addl. Dr. Gen. D.R.i.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(118)LC180Tri(Mum.)bai

Appellants: Bloomberg Data Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. (Chairman), Somnath Pal and B.A. Agarwal, Members Held: Advance Ruling - Bloomberg Keyboard'--The said product has an integrated hardware and software which enables the use of internet as the transmission medium for telephone calls--Does the said product cease to be a 'keyboard' because of the additional facilities--Principal purpose of the product in question being that of a 'keyboard', therefore appropriately classified as under 84.71 6040 of the Schedule as an input of an automatic data processing machine.1. An application has been filed by M/s. Bloomberg Data Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., (the name of the applicant as amended and to be referred to hereinafter as the 'applicant') seeking advance ruling under Section 28H(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The issue, though not shaped in question form, on which an advance ruling has been sought by applicant, is in respect of classification of Bloomberg Keyboar...

Suresh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT466Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants exported 25 consignments of Printed Polystyrene Rectangular Sheet (herein after referred to as PPRS for short) and claimed them to be covered under Sr. No. 15 of Product Group 63 of Appendix 28A of the Hand Book of procedure for 1997-2002. They had filed 25 shipping bills for Post Export DEPB claims. The lower authority after considering the show cause notice issued on the directions of Mumbai High Court in writ petition No. 1540 of 2002, filed the appellants, passed the following order - "In view of the position and facts set as above. I order the aforesaid 25 (Twenty five) shipping Bills where goods were exported on provisional basis will be treated as "FREE Shipping Bills" as row benefits of DEPB scheme can be allowed to the exporter". "The issue involved in the present is whether the clear and categorical opinion given by the DGFT in DEPB scheme can be ignored by the Customs Department who is merely implementing the policy framed by them. In all the cases relied upon...