Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Rahul Metals and Amar Tubes (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two stay applications are directed against the order in appeal M/s Rahul Metals are the suppliers of steel items to various customers.They are the traders. On the basis of investigations carried out by the Central Excise authorities it was noticed that M/s Amar Tubes have received certain material against the invoices issued by M/s Rahual Metals. In the said invoices the details of the transport vehicles mentioned were subjected to verification and it was revealed that the transport vehicles were such (hat these vehicle's could not have been utilised for the transportation of the steel material reflected in the invoices. These were oil tankers etc. and hence it was alleged that M/s Amar Tubes have taken a wrongful credit of Rs. 1,27,977/-. The said M/s Amar Tubes immediately reversed the credit. The order of the lower authority proceeds on the fact that the said M/s Rahul Metals have contributed to the wrongful taking of credit by M/s Amar Tubes. Hence the penalty imposed on ...

indus Engineering Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT322Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 3,34,138/- being the duty confirmed by including excess freight collected by the appellants herein during the period 1997-98 in the assessable value of goods manufactured and cleared by them, and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon them, we found that it was possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving pre-deposit, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal itself, with the consent of both sides.2. We find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the Apex Court's decision in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. vs. CCE 1994 (94) ELT 13 (SC) in which the Apex Court has relied upon its earlier order in the case of Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs. CCE 1988 (36) ELT 723 (SC) holding that duty of excise is a tax on manufacturer and not upon the profits incurred by a dealer on transportation. Learned DR seeks to distinguish this decision on the ground that it...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. R.H. Marketing Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT304Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard the Ld. DR in this appeal filled by Revenue. The respondents are absent. Since the issue involved is covered by the valuation rules itself, the appeal is taken up for decision.2. The respondents had imported a consignment of 'pickers' declaring the value at 1.48 Swiss Francs per piece which was accepted by the Customs and goods allowed to be cleared. Out of the 1800 pickers in the said consignment, it was found that the quantity of 1118 pickers were of different sizes and hence those 1118 pickers were returned by the manufacturer. Full details of returned pickers with references to the original B/E and invoice were given and endorsements by the Customs were also obtained and they were tallying with the documents.Consequently, the Swiss manufacturers sent equal quantity of 'pickers' as 'free replacement' but issued an invoice for Customs purpose showing the price at '1.48 Franks per picker'. That was not taken up as transaction value since it was found that M/s. Bharat Vijay M...

Beckon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT221Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have been sanctioned refund of extra duty of Rs. 90,341/- but the same has been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellants contend that since the valuation of the impugned goods is done under Section 4A on the basis of retail sale price inclusive of all taxes, freight etc., the provision of unjust enrichment has no application in their case. In this regard, they also cite the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore -1996 (83) E.L.T. 114 (Tribunal) which held that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable when maximum retail price is fixed by Drug Control Authority and hence the question of manufacturer passing on the incidence of duty to the customer does not arise. However, I find that in the present case, the retail sale price is not fixed by any statutory authority.Section 4A merely states that the valuation of excisable goods has to be done with reference to retail ...

ispat Metallics (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants had imported drawings and designs for setting up their blast furnace plant. The drawings and designs were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act 1962 and were to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,50,000/-along with personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Section 111. Hence this appeal.2. After hearing both sides arid considering the issue involved, it is found: a) The drawings arid designs are printed. It is found that the claim under 49.06 of Customs Tariff for their classification cannot be upheld. After a perusal of the HSN notes and considering that the classification of technical/engineering drawings have been held to be classifiable under heading 4911.91 of the Customs Tariff Act vide the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Tractors and Farm Equipments {1993 (68) ELT 234 (Tribunal)} and no contrary decision having being shown by the Ld. C.A. appearing for the appellants, the classification under 4911.9...

Standard Inds. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT160Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The dispute in these appeals relate to payment of interest on yarn duty in respect of yarn manufactured and consumed captively in production of grey cotton fabrics. Such yarn constitute a small proportion of the total yarn production, most of which is used in production of dutiable processed fabrics. The yarn used in the processed fabrics is exempted from the duty. Since it was not known at the spindle stage how much of the yarn would be used in grey fabrics and processed fabrics, the duty on yarn used in the grey fabrics has been paid at the time of clearance of grey fabrics.2. Rule 49A allows a manufacturer to defer payment of yarn duty to the stage of clearance of fabrics, and it also stipulates payment of interest at the rate prescribed in the said rule. However, for availing of the procedure under Rule 49A, a manufacturer has to make an application to the Commissioner and he can follow the procedure under Rule 49A only after the Commissioner grants the applic...

Navdeep Engineering and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The case of the department in brief is that M/s. Navdeep Engineering, who are engaged in the manufacture of redrawing of copper tubes, cleared inputs namely copper tubes, finished redrawn copper tubes and copper scrap clandestinely and without payment of duty to M/s. Neha Refrigeration which existed only on paper and M/s. Neha Refrigeration was floated with the sole objective of clearing goods manufactured by M/s. Navdeep Engineering in order to evade payment of correct Central Excise duty as well as to enable other manufacturing units to avail modvat credit without physical receipt of inputs in their factories; the further case of the department is that M/s.Navdeep Engineering charged and collected through a non-existent firm, viz. M/s. Neha Refrigeration, much higher prices than those declared in Central Excise invoices for the purpose...

Ujagar Textile Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT175Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise/ Mumbai, has confirmed a demand of additional duty of Rs. 21,36,202/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon the manufacturer as well as a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on its director. Hence these appeals.2. The demand arises on the ground that a certain quantity of man-made fabrics has been removed by the assessee clandestinely without payment of duty. It is contended that there is no clandestine clearance but a shrinkage which has occurred during the course of processing of the man-made fabrics and the percentage of shrinkage is about 3.78% which is well within the tolerance limit for shrinkage of 4.2%. Our attention is also drawn by the learned Counsel for the appellants to orders of the Central Excise authorities dropping the demands raised on identical grounds.3. In view of the above, we accept the contention of the appellants that the duty demand is neither sustainable nor the penalty, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals....

Atul Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Shri C. Satapathy, Member (T) 1. Heard both sides. Shri R.H. Shah, learned Manager Excise of the appellant company submits that the appellants have been denied the Modvat credit of varying amounts in respect of 13 different capital goods listed below:- Electrical Machinery &spares. Necessary for supply of electricity to various machines 2003 ( 158) ELT 161 (T) 2001(130) ELT397(T) Modvat Rs.1095-00 2, Pump is required for maintaining to control temperature of critical chemical conversion process 2002(149)ELT 736 Modvat Rs.3,42,1 30=00 Used in our reaction vessel which are lined with Acid resisting tiles to resist highly corrosive chemical conditions 1. 1999 (109) ELT 629 (T) (T)3. 1998 (101) ELT 131 (T) 4. 1991(96) ELT (1) - & high temperatures. This is also used as mortar for jointing acid resisting tiles inside the vessels, Therefore, part-& parcel of equipments. These items are also refactory material which are used to project the machinery from the corrosion & are c...

Amforge Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT702Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the impugned order in original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 3.50 lakhs on the appellants. The ground for imposition of penalty was that the appellants had taken credit of Modvat in respect of capital goods even before their installation in their factory. The capital goods were received in the factory of the appellants vide invoice No. 366 dt.24.02.1997 and the credit was Rs. 14,15,573/-. The credit was taken vide entry dt. 04.04.1997 to which department claims is, before having installed the said capital goods in the factory. The appellants, admit this position and after the said omission was pointed out to them they immediately reversed the credit, without even waiting for the issue of show cause notice. Subsequently the Department issued the show cause notice and adjudication order was issued whereby the credit that was reversed, was appropriated and...