Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Rajendra Kumar Mohta and ors. Vs. Commr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed upon the applicants ( details set out in Annexure 'A' to this order), we found that it is possible to hear and dispose of the appeals themselves at this stage, and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit. The case of the department in brief is that goods such as RBD Palmolein were under invoiced and cleared duty free by submitting forged advance licences and TRAs and sold in the local markets through brokers, and that the whole transaction was masterminded by one Shri More of More Group of companies. We find that in identical circumstances involving the same Group of companies, the appeals were filed before the Tribunal against the imposition of penalties by one P.Charia, R.K. Mundra, D.K. Kafta, Kandla Clearing Agency and others, challenging the Orders-in-Original Nos. 6 & 7 of 2002 dated 15/4/2002 on the twin grounds of lack of juri...

Shree Sainath Fabrics Inds. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(198)ELT274Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for some of the appellants states that the main issue in these appeals is as to whether the value of first clearances for the purpose of granting exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE should be computed in respect of the impugned goods which became specified goods under the said notification on 25/04/1994 from that date or from a later date when the appellants opted to avail the said exemption. Shri Patil further states that the matter has since been decided by majority order in the case of C.C.E. Surat v. 1) Asia Textiles and Ors. and (2) Zenith Weaves Ltd. and Ors. vide Tribunal's Order No. A/43 & 44/WZB/04/CI dtd.23/01/2004.As per the said majority order, the value of clearances has to be computed from the date the appellants had opted for the exemption during the year 1994-95.2. Shri R.K. Pardesi, learned J.D.R. strongly opposes the contention of the learned advocate and argues that the value of clearances has...

Shree Balaji Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT58Tri(Mum.)bai

(a) appellants are aggrieved against the orders of heavy redemption fine and penalty imposed on them for having imported 278 pieces of old used and second hand diesel engines under BE No. 260/16.11.1199 & 262/16.11.1999. (b) The Show Cause Notice issued found the declared value of the engines and 12 nos of old used carseats to be on the lower side and the goods required an import licence, which was nor produced. Therefore, they were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 (d) and (m) and penalties under Section 112 (a) were imposed. The values were enhanced for the old engines. (i) the imports were reconditioning repair and replacement and the appellants were registered with the Director of Industries. (ii) Goods were purchased on 'as is where is condition' and the packing and transport has caused breakings of parts. 15% to 20% engines would be beyond retrieval and will only supply canalised parts. (iii) They contested the 100% and gave the following figure for purpose of prof...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT506Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. These appeals are against duty demand of Rs.3,52,08,527/- for the period July 1997 to June,2000 and imposition of penalty of an equal amount on the first appellant and penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh on the second appellant. The Adjudicating Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand on the ground that the assessable value for captive consumption has not included the expenses incurred by the corporate office as well as selling and distribution expenses.2. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Advocate for the appellants points out that the duty demand has been confirmed relying on Board's Circular No.258/92/96 dtd.30/10/1996 without taking into account the subsequent Circular No. 692/08/2003 dtd. 13/02/2003 which modified the earlier circular. He further states that the subsequent circular clearly clarifies how to compute the cost and refers to CAS - 4, which in paragraph 5.7 excludes administrative overheads including marketing, corporate office expenses etc. It is his claim that the...

Everest Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC401

1. Shri Mayur Shroff, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri Arun Chopra, Ld. JDR appeared for the revenue.2. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the appellant is a transferee of the advance licence. M/s. G.R. Magnets Ltd., were the licence holders. He submitted that the appellant has not availed the modvat credit still he is being denied the benefit of the Notification No. 203/92. He drew our attention to page 36 of the paper book of the memo of appeal wherein the Superintendent has certified that the goods mentioned therein have been manufactured without availing modvat credit. In support of his contention the Ld. Counsel also relied on the decision in the case of Goodluck Industries, 1999 (108) ELT 818 (Tribunal) to the effect that the burden of proof as to fulfilment of export obligation and whether modvat credit is taken on inputs, is to be discharged by the original licence holders and not by the transferee. Further he also contended that the said decision of the ...

E.U. Medicaments Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT353Tri(Mum.)bai

i) Generic & Pharmacopoeia description given were bolder then additional words. "The Apex court in the case of Astro Pharmaceutical (P) Ltd 1995 (75) ELT 214 SC has classified the distinction between 'House Mark' & 'product work' & holding that House Mark is compulsory under the Drug Rule & Product Mark is based-----is the identity upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner." b) There is no finding in both the orders whether the disputed invented words on the packages are words permitted & mentioned in the Pharmacopoeial. Therefore the additional involved words would constitute & bring in the application of note 2(ii) of chapter 30 to cause for a classification under 3003.10. The note does not stipulate any restrictions on size of the Type front used or package size to exclude classification for 3003.10. There is no reason to find the different marks as 'House Mark' of the appellant.c) In this view the orders of the lower authority cannot be sustained .They...

Saphire Capsules P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT589Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals by the same appellant, on similar issue are being disposed by this order. (a) The issue involved is whether the entities described on the labels/packing material as follows Would be classified as P and P medicaments under heading 3003.10 or generic medicaments, under 3003.20 as arrived at by the lower authority on the grounds, that the prescription by the Doctors and sale by name JECID and INTER-CID is evidence to that effect is produced and therefore the use of these terms/names would not amount a 'brand name' as per chapter note 2 to chapter 30. Therefore classification is upheld under 3003.20.The chapter Note 2(ii) to Chapter 30, on a reading, prescribes that any invented words symbol set marks in addition to the name and terms used in the prescribed pharmacopoeias would be covered by the definition to bring the entry under 3003.10. The words 'INTERCID' and 'JECID' are not proved to be used in pharmacopoeias in addition to the words 'indomethacin'. Therefore th...

Susangat Engineering Works and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The three appeals namely 4483, 3507, 3528/98 are directed against a common order. Therefore the same are heard together and are being disposed off through a common order. The dispute relates to availability of benefit of full exemption, from Central Excise duty to small scale units under Notification No. 1/93 CE dated 1.3.93. The appellants had affixed a brand "Amba", on the excisable goods. As a result of goods bearing the brand name, the departmental authorities proceeded to hold that the said brand "Amba" belongs to a person, other than the appellants and hence are ineligible for duty exemption. The appellants had pleaded that their case is covered by the instructions contained in Board's circular No. 52/52/94 CX dated 1.9.94. It was claimed that, the goods cleared with the brand name by each of the units are not the same, but are quite different. It was also pleaded that, the brand "Amba" does not belong to any particular person, and can be freely used by any one. However, thes...

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT405Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of tyres for two wheeled motor vehicles. During the period under dispute the appellant cleared tyres of size 2.50" x 16" and 2.25" x 16". After filing the classification declaration under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules describing the goods as Moped tyres claiming concessional rate of duty applicable to such tyres under Notification No. 41/89 dt. 1.3.89 and 21/95 dt.16.3.95 the appellant cleared the goods. The effective rate of duty for tyres for two wheeled motor vehicles known as mopeds was Rs. 29/- and for two wheel motor vehicles other than mopeds is Rs. 40/- under Notification 41/89 as amended. The period of dispute is 1.3.92 to 28.3.93 and 1.5.93 to 30.11.96. The contention of the department is that the appellant cleared two wheeled motor vehicle tyres meant for motor cycles claiming them to be moped tyres. The show cause notice is dt. 13.3.97 invoking the larger period of limitation alleging that the appellant mis-declared the goods and supp...

United Phosphorus Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, has confirmed a duty demand of Rs.29,34,155/- on Monocrotophos (technical grade pesticide) cleared by the appellants herein during the period April 1995 to May 1996, on the ground that the depot price, and not the stock transfer price, was to be adopted as assessable value for payment of duty, and imposed a penalty of amount equal to duty, vide the impugned order.3. We find that the appellants had raised the plea inter alia that they could not be held guilty of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, as the entire amount of duty raised in the show cause notice was available to their own unit as modvat credit. This plea has not been controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, in the light of the larger bench decision in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi 2000 (119) ELT 718 holding that the extended period of limitation is not applicable when revenue neutrality comes about in relation to the credit available to the assesse...