Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Norris Medicines Ltd. and N.J. Vs. C.C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Commissioner, after hearing the appellants had imposed a penality on Shri. N.J. Patel the Director of the assessee Company under Rule 173Q & 269A of the Excise Rules hence appeal No. E/2962-R/99. As regards the assessee, in appeal No. E/2961-R/99 the order passed was to- i) Disallow the Modvat credit of Rs. 23,10,299/- as availed during the period October 93 to March 98 & recover the same under Rule 57-1(1) (ii) read with Section 11A(2) along with interest under Rule 571 (5). ii) Penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Rule 173Q (1) and confiscation of land building etc under Rule 173Q (2) with option to redeem the same on a fine of Rs. 25,000/- a) The Commissioner vide para 35 of the impugned order has found, as regards appellant N.J. Patel as follows- It is contended by Shri N.J. Patel, Director of the unit that he is not concerned with the availment and utilisation of modvat credit. That he is only responsible for production Schedule and allied technical matters of the Company, th...

Elephanta Oil and Vanaspati Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC154

1. The brief factual background relevant for the purpose of the above applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery is that during the period December, 1978 to April, 1979, applicant No. 1 imported RBD Palm Oil and cleared the same on 10 Bills of Entry Visit by the Central Excise officers to the factory premises of one M/s.Steel and Metal Works, Sahibabad in July, 1979, in pursuance of intelligence, resulted in their noticing huge stocks of empty drums painted in red; that some of the drums were converted into sheets by flattening the drum bodies after cutting and separating the tops and bottoms; that the drums belong to applicant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as importers); and that some of the converted sheets of the drums was sent to other companies for re-rolling. On further intelligence the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the importer and found huge stocks of empty magnetic and non-magnetic drums, top and bottoms similar to those found at th...

Scitech Corporation and Mr. K.N. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant in appeal No. E/2835 is an assessee Company Manufacturing and clearing floor cleaning preparation in the trade names of Delfloor & Zamindar, Swipe; in appeal No. E/2836 is a trustee of the assessee Company. They are aggrieved by the denial of benefit of notification 175/86 and 1/93 for non application of the following clauses ____ 'This exemption in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods were a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with the brand name or the trade name (regular or notification) of another person who is not eligible for grant of exemption under this notifications.' "The exemption in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods a brand name or trade name (regular or not) of another person". a) The appellants had produced material to the effect that the said brand name/ trade name "Delstar" did not belong to the floor polishing machine manufacturers viz M/s Delstar Pvt Ltd. who were the ultimate respondent of the goods ea...

Reliance Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioners of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC180

1. The appellants are importers of iron ore pallets/iron ore lumps falling under Chapter 26 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at Revdanda port. Ocean going 'foreign mother vessel' carrying the import cargo anchors in the sea, at Revdanda Anchorage about 16 to 20 Nautical miles, away from the Revdanda port jetties on account of low water draught. The Mini BulkCarriers (hereinafter referred to as 'Barges') come alongside the foreign mother vessel and with the aid of a 'Floating Crane' the imported cargo is water borne from the "mother vessel" in to the barges, the barges bring the imported cargo of Vikram Jetty at Revdanda Port. At the jetty, there is no stock yard for storage. There is however an arrangement of Continuous Barge Unloader (hereinafter referred to as 'CBU'), Figee Crane, H.B.L. Loader System and Conveyor Belt System installed with the help of CBU, & other instruments the cargo in the barges is loaded on to the convey belt system which moves the cargo from the jetty to t...

Sunrise Soaps and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT411Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicants M/s. Sunrise Soaps and Chemicals Ltd., in their present application seek condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. It has been pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had disposed of three appeals, two by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., and one by M/s. Sunrise Soaps and Chemicals Ltd., The first applicant M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd. filed appeals against the impugned order in time whereas M/s. Sunrise Soaps and Chemicals Ltd., had filed the instant appeal after a delay or 42 days. The Id, Counsel for the applicant submits that, since it was a common order covering all the three appeals, it was their bona fide belief that, the appeal filed by M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd., would cover the grounds against the impugned order raised in the applicant's case also. However, on realizing that a separate appeal is required to be filed, the instant appeal has been filed, which involved the delay of 42 days.3. Considering the submissions made by the Id. Counsel, we are satisfied...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shah Textiles Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC79

1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad by the Revenue. The issue pertains to classification of ''dyed D/C book binding cloth" manufactured by the respondent company - under heading 52.06 or under 5901.10 of CETA.Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner who held that the said goods are classifiable under heading 52.06. Revenue disagrees. Wants it under heading 5901.10. Cross objections have been filed by the respondents.3. The respondent company manufactures dyed D/C book binding cloth and clears it under heading 52.06 as cotton fabric. Show cause notices were issued to them for its classification under 5901.10 as the product was coated with gum or amylaceous substance (starch) and other chemicals and is sold in the market as book binding cloth. It is used for book binding and for similar purposes. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the classification under 5901.10 and demanded the dif...

Electropneumatics and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in this case is valuation of goods manufactured for captive consumption three show cause notices for the different period/amounts were issued and (sic) duty of Rs. 4,32,246/- was confirmed along with penalty. The case of Revenue is that the overhead added to work out of the value of the goods sent for captive consumption in their other unit of "Chakan" were on the lower side and they should be raised from 25% as declared to 82% and 106% based on the report of Assistant Director Cost of Central Excise Department. On a prima facie finding it is found that certain expenses which have been taken as cost by the Assistant Director Cost to work out the percentage like heads of interest, selling and distribution expenses, foreign travel etc. were not required to be added. These issues were seriously contested before the Ld. Adjudicator and it was the case of the appellants that the Ld. Adjudicator has not considered the submissions of exclusion of the expenses and if suc...

Cce Vs. Venus Engg. Services

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC557Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents herein were availing proforma credit under Rule 56A on copper pipes and tubes, electric motors, aluminium sheets and coils, even after the deletion of these items from the coverage of proforma credit vide Notification No. 178/86 dated 1.3.1986, i.e. they continued to avail proforma credit on these items up to February, 1987 and on this basis the Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit. However, the lower appellate Authority held that they were eligible to credit as they were protected by Rule 56A(8) which was introduced by Notification No. 91/86 CE dated 10.2.1986 which provides that Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Rule...the credit of duty paid on any material...shall be allowed if the credit of duty was allowable in respect of such material...under this rule or under a notification issued under Rule 8 of these rules requiring the procedure set out in Schedule to be followed, immediately before the commencement of the CETA. 1985.The Commis...

Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. and Wvg. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC137

1. The duty demand is in respect of doubled yarn manufactured by the appellant. The doubled yarn is captively consumed in the same factory by the appellant for further manufacture. The impugned order has held that appellant was liable to pay duty on the doubled yarn in view of amendment of Notification No. 35/95 w.e.f. 16.3.95. That amendment added the following provisic to the Notification and the Revenue's contention is that the proviso made the appellant liable to pay duty on the doubled yarn: "Provided that the exemption contained hereinabove relating to S.No. 1 or 2 shall not apply to clearances of yarn from a factory having facilities (including plant and equipment) for producing single yarn." 2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. The appellant's grievance is mainly two fold. First is that the proviso did not cover captively consumed goods as in the appellant's case, because the proviso excluded only "clearances of yarn from a factory"...

Chawala Steel Rolling Mill Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides and considering that it is on records the copy of the show cause notice dt.22.1.96 in this case was marked to and served on the appellant firm without specifically asking the said firm and/or its partner Shri D.T. Chaudhry to show cause against any of the purported charges including the charge of levy of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.2. From the impugned order at page 50 it is seen that the Commissioner has found, as under as regards this notice. "The notices No. 2 i.e. M/s. Chawla Steel Rolling Mills. Thane have also rendered themselves liable for penalty in as much as they have failed to follows the correct procedure in respect of 2531. 745 MT of M.S. ingots which were purported to have been dispatched under endorsed gate passes. However, I find that sufficient grounds have not been brought out in the show cause notice to establish that Shri Dinesh T. Chaudhary was concerned or responsible for the aforesaid contraventions and as such...