Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Gopala Polyplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Hardik Modh, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Arun Chopra, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the revenue.2. The Ld. Counsel brought to my notice that the order dated 28.1.1998 has been passed by the adjudicating authority without hearing the assessee. It is seen from the said order that the adjudicating authority has raised following six objections:- "1. The original Bill of Entries are not available, copy of both Bill of Entry enclosed with report. 2. Endorsement done on Bill of Entry No.00043/18.8.92 but not done on Bill of Entry No. 0004184/17.8.92. 3. Register of Certificates was maintained at Range Office. Certificate dtd. 30.11.92 given Sr.No.6, but Certificate dtd. 20.11.92 was not given any Serial No. 4. The Range Supdt. Has enclosed a copy of letter dtd. 30.9.96 of M/s. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. that their neither availed modvat credit nor filed any refund claim for the CVD as the final product are fully exempted. 5. Copy of Certificate regarding n...

Neelam Micro Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On matter being called nobody appeared on behalf of the appellants in spite of today's notice of hearing having been issued well in advance. We also note from records that the matter has been coming up on board from 13/01/2004 onwards and on all the four occasions the appellants sought adjournment. As such we have ourselves gone through the impugned order and have heard Shri K.K. Srivasatava, learned DR for the Revenue.2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the emergence of computers at the appellant's premises by assembling of various parts bought out by the appellants themselves amounts to manufacture or not The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted benefit to the appellants wherever the parts were supplied by the appellants at the premises of their customers and the assembling was undertaken at the customer's premises. We note that the amount of duty is only to the extent of Rs. 1,53,465.00. The issue involved is arguable. No final view can be taken at t...

Krypton (New Chemi Inds. Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT278Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The short point involved in the appeal is to whether Technical Grade Pesticides manufactured by the appellants would fall under Heading 3808.10 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by the appellants read with the Notifications No. 16/96-C.E., dated 27-3-1996 and 5/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 or the same would be classifiable under Heading 3823.00 up to 28-2-1997 and under Heading 3824.90 with effect from 1-3-1997 in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority accepting the appellants claim. Our attention has been drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India v. Pesticides Mfg. & Formulators Association of India reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) wherein the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi holding that Technical Grade Pesticides, Insecticides etc. in bulk form are as classifiable under Heading 38.08 has been upheld. The Central Boa...

Vinay Singh Kushwaha and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT426Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All these stay petitions are being taken up together as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner vide which he has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 22,64,176/- against M/s, Globali Health Care Products on the finding that their product, Close-up Whitening, appropriately classifiable under heading 3306.10 as tooth paste instead of classifying under heading 3306,90, as claimed, by the appellants. It is seen that the rate of duty under both the headings is the same.However, if the goods are classified under heading 3306.10, the value of, the same is liable to be adjudged under the provisions of Section 4A instead of adjudging the transaction value, resulting in payment of higher duty. In addition the Commissioner has also imposed personal penalties upon various persons under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and also imposed personal penalty of identical amount upon M/s. Global Health Care Products.2. After hearing both sides duly represented...

Rsrm Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 2,27,50,778/- and personal penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed upon the appellants. The said duty has been confirmed in respect of grey fabrics manufactured by the appellants out of yarn which is captively consumed and is exempt under Notification No. 22/96. The Commissioner has observed that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification 14/2002 in respect of the fabrics inasmuch as the condition that the same should have been manufactured out of the raw material on which appropriate duty has been paid does not stand satisfied. For the above proposition reliance has been placed upon, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries 2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC) holding that nil rate of duty does not amount to payment of appropriate duty on the inputs.2. Arguing in support of the stay petition learned...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Power Build Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT109Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The revenue appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal, whereby the respondent's appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Collector was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Assistant Collector classified the "endless belt with cleat" under chapter heading No. 4010.90 and confirmed the differential demand of Rs. 15,853/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the findings and hence the revenue's appeal.2. We note that, the appellants obtain duly paid endless bells from the market and undertake the activities of fixing of "cleats" to the endless belt. The revenue was of the view that fixing of cleat to the endless bell is an activity of manufacture of endless belts under chapter heading No. 4010.90. In the ground of appeal it has been pleaded that in terms of instructions issued by the Board vide their Circular No. 99/6/87-CX-3 dated 9-3-87, the process of joining the ends to obtain endless belts would constitute "manufacture" under the Central Excise Law, inasmuch as...

Dhariwal Industries and 16 ors. Vs. Commissioner (Prev.) of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

(i) Appeal Nos. E/3195 to 3202/99 by M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. Shirur an assessee, the Director and others. (ii) Appeal No. E/2910/2000 Mum is by Revenue in the same case against M/s. Dhariwal Industries Shirur. (iii) Appeal No. E/3018, 3051 to 3055, 3088 to 3090, 3110/99 -Mum by M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd., Vadodara factory and others.The Company M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. (earlier known as M/s.Dhariwal Tobacco Product (P) Ltd.) is a manufacturer of MANIKCHAND Pan Masala and Gutkha and having factory registered with Central Excise at Shirur near Pune and at Vadodara, (herein after the assessees, for sake of brevity referred to as DIL-S for the Shirur factory and DIL-V for the Vadodara factory.) 1.2 The Company's factories at Shirur and Vadodara and various premises of C &F agents and others were searched all over India by the officers of Director General Anti Evasion and enquiries were conducted and show cause notices issued as follows - (A) To DIL-S and others demanding...

Kakda Impex (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC230

1. This appeal is filed against an order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai -II vide order No.PKA/23/Mum-II/2003 by the appellant. The facts that gave rise in filing this appeal may be summed up as follows:- 2. The director of the appellant company namely Shri Govindnarayan Kedarnath Kakada was arrested in connection with an offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act and produced by the department of Central Excise before the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and got remanded to judicial custody. He moved bail application (Criminal Application No. 1069/1999) before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, and the same has been considered by an order dated 12th April 1999 subject to his depositing Rs. 50 Lakhs in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and on furnishing solvency of Rs. 3,000/- with one surety for like sum. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was also directed to deposit said sum of Rs. 5...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bentoll Chemical Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a Revenues appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 29 of CETA. He has taken modvat credit of Rs. 8,81,125/- on capital goods received in his factory during the month of May 1995. The goods involved are plates, refrigeration compressors, angles, bars, joints and channels etc. The credit was denied and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed by the lower authority. In appeal, the Commissioner set aside the lower authority's order. Hence the appeal by the Revenue.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Jawahar Mills and applied the ratio. The Apex Court observed thus "The aforesaid definition of 'Capital Goods' is very wide. Capital Goods can be machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances. Any of these goods if used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for ...

Shayona Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT111Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri Rajeev Waglay, C.A appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.K. Saxena, Ld. JDR appeared for the revenue.2. At the outset Shri R Waglay fairly admitted that HSD is excluded by Notification No.5/94 dated 1.3.1994 as amended from time to time and the same is not eligible for modvat credit. However, he contended that these items i.e. HFHSD is totally different item as per the properties given at page 7 of the memo of the appeal. He also drew my attention to the certificate dated 22.1.98 given by the I.O.C certifying that the normal High Speed Diesel i.e. HSD and The High Flash HSD i.e. HF-HSD are two distinctly different products having separate applications, uses and specifications. He, however, contended that the said certificate issued by the IOC have not been considered by the lower authorities. He also submitted that it is clear from the remarks on the reverse of the invoice that modvat is not admissible to the appellant, as the item is totally different and it has diff...